Mitchell v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Goord

272 A.D.2d 696, 708 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 696 (Mitchell v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. Goord, 272 A.D.2d 696, 708 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of using a controlled substance after two tests on petitioner’s urine yielded positive results for the presence of opiates. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, positive test results and testimony presented at the hearing provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Aviles v Selsky, 264 AD2d 883). Furthermore, given the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, we reject petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the chain of custody and adequacy of the testing procedures used (see, Matter of Rivera v Goord, 258 AD2d 858; Matter of Medina v Goord, 249 AD2d 655). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his speculative claims that the request form was fabricated and that he was denied relevant documentary evidence, have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Graffeo and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of using a controlled substance after two tests on petitioner’s urine yielded positive results for the presence of opiates. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, positive test results and testimony presented at the hearing provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Aviles v Selsky, 264 AD2d 883). Furthermore, given the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, we reject petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the chain of custody and adequacy of the testing procedures used (see, Matter of Rivera v Goord, 258 AD2d 858; Matter of Medina v Goord, 249 AD2d 655). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his speculative claims that the request form was fabricated and that he was denied relevant documentary evidence, have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Graffeo and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 696, 708 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack