Woodrich v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodrich v. Coombe

231 A.D.2d 892, 648 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10734

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 892 (Woodrich v. Coombe) 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

Woodrich v. Coombe, 231 A.D.2d 892, 648 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondent’s determination that petitioner, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, possessed a cannabinoid substance in violation of inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135). There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that respondent violated 7 NYCRR 1020.4 (e) (1) (i), which requires that each person handling a urine sample make an appropriate notation on the chain of custody portion of the urinalysis test request form. "[I]t is enough that another, a secretary or some other staff member, make the notations on the handler’s behalf’ (Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, 1000, lv denied 75 NY2d 705).

Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his contention that, prior to his disciplinary hearing, he was denied access to a memorandum prepared by a correction officer concerning the "non-affect” of certain medications upon the accuracy of the drug test. Thus, we lack discretionary power to review that contention (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondent’s determination that petitioner, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, possessed a cannabinoid substance in violation of inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135). There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that respondent violated 7 NYCRR 1020.4 (e) (1) (i), which requires that each person handling a urine sample make an appropriate notation on the chain of custody portion of the urinalysis test request form. "[I]t is enough that another, a secretary or some other staff member, make the notations on the handler’s behalf’ (Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 153 AD2d 999, 1000, lv denied 75 NY2d 705).

Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his contention that, prior to his disciplinary hearing, he was denied access to a memorandum prepared by a correction officer concerning the "non-affect” of certain medications upon the accuracy of the drug test. Thus, we lack discretionary power to review that contention (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 892, 648 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodrich-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack