Suggs v. Miller

22 A.D.3d 910, 802 N.Y.S.2d 775
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 910 (Suggs v. Miller) 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
Suggs v. Miller, 22 A.D.3d 910, 802 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

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

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Inasmuch as the misbehavior report, positive test results and supporting documentation, together with the testimony at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Paige v Goord, 19 AD3d 908 [2005]; Matter of Sow v Selsky, 7 AD3d 903, 904 [2004]). Furthermore, it was within the province of the Hearing Officer to resolve the credibility issue arising from petitioner’s defense that the medications he was taking resulted in the positive test results and the contrary testimony from a technician specialist employed by the manufacturer of the testing equipment that, although not individually tested, the differing chemical and molecular [911]*911structures between the subject medications and cannabis would not result in a false positive (see Matter of Figueroa v Goord, 15 AD3d 705 [2005]; Matter of Townes v Goord, 14 AD3d 754, 755 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Feters and Spain, 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

Coons v. Fischer
106 A.D.3d 1302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ruiz v. Goord
35 A.D.3d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ramirez v. Goord
32 A.D.3d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Mullen v. Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility
29 A.D.3d 1244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.3d 910, 802 N.Y.S.2d 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suggs-v-miller-nyappdiv-2005.