Wilson v. Department of Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Department of Correction

226 A.D.2d 151, 640 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3455

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

DecidedApril 4, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 151 (Wilson v. 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

Wilson v. Department of Correction, 226 A.D.2d 151, 640 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent Correction Commissioner dated April 28, 1994, dismissing petitioner as a correction officer, upon a finding that she knowingly ingested cocaine, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Salvador Collazo, J.], entered March 1, 1995) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner knowingly ingested cocaine, necessarily based as it was on the crediting of the testimony of a correction officer with respect to the integ[152]*152rity of the random drug test administered to petitioner, and the discrediting of petitioner’s disavowal of drug use and claim that her specimen was tainted during the testing procedure, should not be second-guessed by the courts (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443; Matter of Sadler v Bratton, 219 AD2d 517). Both sides’ expert witnesses testified that they did not know of a situation where someone had registered a false positive result for the cocaine metabolite, only present in cocaine, and it was pure speculation for petitioner’s expert to opine that such a false positive could be caused by the ingestion of herbal teas. The penalty of dismissal was not unwarranted (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, supra, at 445). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent Correction Commissioner dated April 28, 1994, dismissing petitioner as a correction officer, upon a finding that she knowingly ingested cocaine, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Salvador Collazo, J.], entered March 1, 1995) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner knowingly ingested cocaine, necessarily based as it was on the crediting of the testimony of a correction officer with respect to the integ[152]*152rity of the random drug test administered to petitioner, and the discrediting of petitioner’s disavowal of drug use and claim that her specimen was tainted during the testing procedure, should not be second-guessed by the courts (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443; Matter of Sadler v Bratton, 219 AD2d 517). Both sides’ expert witnesses testified that they did not know of a situation where someone had registered a false positive result for the cocaine metabolite, only present in cocaine, and it was pure speculation for petitioner’s expert to opine that such a false positive could be caused by the ingestion of herbal teas. The penalty of dismissal was not unwarranted (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, supra, at 445). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 151, 640 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-department-of-correction-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack