Rodriguez v. Goord

268 A.D.2d 831, 700 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 573
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 831 (Rodriguez 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
Rodriguez v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 831, 700 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was served with a misbehavior report alleging that two EMIT tests performed on petitioner’s urine sample yielded positive results for the presence of cannabinoids. At the ensuing tier III prison disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from using controlled substances. In our view, petitioner’s admission of guilt, combined with, inter alla, the positive results of the urinalysis tests, constitute substantial evidence supporting the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Kussius v Walker, 247 AD2d 911, 912). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claims of insufficient notice, Hearing Officer bias and ineffective employee assistance, have been reviewed and, to the extent that they were preserved for appellate review, found to be unpersuasive.

[832]*832Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, 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

Related

Mathie v. Selsky
303 A.D.2d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Perez v. Goord
274 A.D.2d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 831, 700 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-goord-nyappdiv-2000.