Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Walter ELLISON, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. The misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Struble v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 845, 700 N.Y.S.2d 871). Petitioner's contention that his urine sample was confused with that of another inmate raised a credibility issue properly resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Bonaguro v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 849, 681 N.Y.S.2d 814). We also reject petitioner's contention that the failure to refrigerate his urine sample prior to testing violated respondent's procedure regulations. Refrigeration is required only if the sample is not tested “immediately” (7 NYCRR 1020.4[e][1][ii] ). Inasmuch as petitioner's urine sample was kept in a secure area (see, 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e][1][i] ) and was tested approximately three hours after it was obtained, there is no basis to disturb the conclusion that the refrigeration requirement was not violated (see, Matter of Peterson v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 739, 701 N.Y.S.2d 488).
Also without merit is petitioner's contention that his prehearing assistance was inadequate and violated his constitutional rights. The record reveals that although petitioner initially was given the wrong procedure forms, the Hearing Officer acted diligently to cure the alleged deficiency (see, Matter of West v. Costello, 270 A.D.2d 673, 705 N.Y.S.2d 417). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent they have been preserved, have been examined and found to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 20, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)