Rodriguez v. New York City Department of Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. New York City Department of Correction

290 A.D.2d 253, 735 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 145

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 253 (Rodriguez v. New York City Department of Correction) 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. New York City Department of Correction, 290 A.D.2d 253, 735 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated August 28, 2000, finding petitioner inmate guilty of narcotics possession and imposing a penalty of 90 days in punitive segregation, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County [Peter Benitez, JJ, entered on or about March 16, 2001) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s argument that substantial evidence is lacking to support the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner possessed heroin because the NIK drug test results relied upon by the hearing officer were received without a proper foundation is unavailing. Petitioner makes no claim that he timely objected to the admission of the NIK test results at the disciplinary hearing. We note, in any case, that NIK test results have been recognized by courts as facially competent evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 144; Matter of Angel A., 92 NY2d 430, 435). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated August 28, 2000, finding petitioner inmate guilty of narcotics possession and imposing a penalty of 90 days in punitive segregation, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County [Peter Benitez, JJ, entered on or about March 16, 2001) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s argument that substantial evidence is lacking to support the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner possessed heroin because the NIK drug test results relied upon by the hearing officer were received without a proper foundation is unavailing. Petitioner makes no claim that he timely objected to the admission of the NIK test results at the disciplinary hearing. We note, in any case, that NIK test results have been recognized by courts as facially competent evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 144; Matter of Angel A., 92 NY2d 430, 435). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 253, 735 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-new-york-city-department-of-correction-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack