Rashid v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rashid v. Coombe

239 A.D.2d 954, 661 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 954 (Rashid v. Coombe) 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

Rashid v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 954, 661 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [in]) by possessing an opiate is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Although the SYVA test manual indicates that an ingredient in the cough syrup medication taken by petitioner "could” cause a false positive result, hearsay evidence provided by facility medical personnel and the toxicology laboratory utilized by respondent establish that petitioner did not ingest enough of the cough syrup to cause a false positive result. Further, the record does not support the contention that the Hearing Officer improperly considered petitioner’s previous drug violations as evidence of guilt of the instant oifense (cf., Matter of Lonski v [955]*955Coughlin, 126 AD2d 981, 982). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [in]) by possessing an opiate is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Although the SYVA test manual indicates that an ingredient in the cough syrup medication taken by petitioner "could” cause a false positive result, hearsay evidence provided by facility medical personnel and the toxicology laboratory utilized by respondent establish that petitioner did not ingest enough of the cough syrup to cause a false positive result. Further, the record does not support the contention that the Hearing Officer improperly considered petitioner’s previous drug violations as evidence of guilt of the instant oifense (cf., Matter of Lonski v [955]*955Coughlin, 126 AD2d 981, 982). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 954, 661 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rashid-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack