Toney v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toney v. Goord

19 A.D.3d 843, 797 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6763

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 843 (Toney 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

Toney v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 843, 797 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Fetitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding chai[844]*844lenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record establishes that the positive test result was reliable inasmuch as it reveals that petitioner’s urine sample was properly handled and the testing procedures, including a check for cross-reactivity of petitioner’s prescribed medication, were properly followed (see Matter of Figueroa v Goord, 15 AD3d 705, 706 [2005]; Matter of Van Dusen v Selsky, 14 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]; Matter of Davis v Goord, 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]; see also 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d] [2], [5]; [e]). As the misbehavior report, the positive test results and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138 [1987]; Matter of Davis v Goord, supra at 855). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claims that the Hearing Officer was biased and that he was denied meaningful employee assistance, have been considered and are rejected.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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

Proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Fetitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding chai[844]*844lenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record establishes that the positive test result was reliable inasmuch as it reveals that petitioner’s urine sample was properly handled and the testing procedures, including a check for cross-reactivity of petitioner’s prescribed medication, were properly followed (see Matter of Figueroa v Goord, 15 AD3d 705, 706 [2005]; Matter of Van Dusen v Selsky, 14 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]; Matter of Davis v Goord, 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]; see also 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d] [2], [5]; [e]). As the misbehavior report, the positive test results and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138 [1987]; Matter of Davis v Goord, supra at 855). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claims that the Hearing Officer was biased and that he was denied meaningful employee assistance, have been considered and are rejected.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 843, 797 N.Y.S.2d 171, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toney-v-goord-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack