Townes v. Keane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Townes v. Keane

258 A.D.2d 873, 685 N.Y.S.2d 132

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 873 (Townes v. Keane) 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

Townes v. Keane, 258 A.D.2d 873, 685 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Following a hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of using a controlled substance in violation of prison disciplinary rules. The misbehavior report, the positive results of two urinalysis tests and the testimony presented at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Goord, 246 AD2d 942). We reject petitioner’s challenge that the correction officer who performed the urinalysis tests was not qualified to do so. Although the correction officer had not yet received an actual certificate, the record establishes that he was “appropriately trained in the use of the [urinalysis] testing apparatus” (7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1] [iii]), having been trained by the “master trainer” for the Department of Correctional Services, and was [874]*874listed as a certified urinalysis tester for the correctional facility (see, Matter of Grant v Coombe, 240 AD2d 784). Furthermore, we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of petitioner’s request to call various witnesses inasmuch as the record supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that their testimony would be redundant or irrelevant to the controlled substance charge (see, Matter of Fletcher v Murphy, 249 AD2d 638). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the chain of custody and claim of an alleged off-the-record interview with a witness whom petitioner had requested, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a hearing, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of using a controlled substance in violation of prison disciplinary rules. The misbehavior report, the positive results of two urinalysis tests and the testimony presented at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Goord, 246 AD2d 942). We reject petitioner’s challenge that the correction officer who performed the urinalysis tests was not qualified to do so. Although the correction officer had not yet received an actual certificate, the record establishes that he was “appropriately trained in the use of the [urinalysis] testing apparatus” (7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1] [iii]), having been trained by the “master trainer” for the Department of Correctional Services, and was [874]*874listed as a certified urinalysis tester for the correctional facility (see, Matter of Grant v Coombe, 240 AD2d 784). Furthermore, we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of petitioner’s request to call various witnesses inasmuch as the record supports the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that their testimony would be redundant or irrelevant to the controlled substance charge (see, Matter of Fletcher v Murphy, 249 AD2d 638). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the chain of custody and claim of an alleged off-the-record interview with a witness whom petitioner had requested, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 873, 685 N.Y.S.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townes-v-keane-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack