Morales v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. Coughlin

188 A.D.2d 780, 591 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13878

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 780 (Morales v. Coughlin) 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

Morales v. Coughlin, 188 A.D.2d 780, 591 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered February 25, 1992 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner’s only argument on this appeal is that two positive results from EMIT drug tests could not serve as substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt absent a confirmatory test of [781]*781the specimen using a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry drug test. The Court of Appeals has recently held, however, that positive results in two EMIT drug tests constitute substantial evidence of guilt of the use of a controlled substance (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ellison, J.), entered February 25, 1992 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner’s only argument on this appeal is that two positive results from EMIT drug tests could not serve as substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt absent a confirmatory test of [781]*781the specimen using a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry drug test. The Court of Appeals has recently held, however, that positive results in two EMIT drug tests constitute substantial evidence of guilt of the use of a controlled substance (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 780, 591 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack