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: Tomas MUNIZ, Appellant, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of the Inmate Disciplinary Program for the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered August 17, 1999 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the error of transcribing an incorrect test number from the correctional facility's administrative log book to the calibration slip does not, under the circumstances here, constitute reversible error (see, Matter of Russo v. Selsky, 249 A.D.2d 738, 739, 671 N.Y.S.2d 787; Matter of Saldana v. Coombe, 241 A.D.2d 584, 660 N.Y.S.2d 77). This inadvertent error was subsequently clarified by the testimony of the correction officer who performed the test and recorded the information. Notwithstanding this error, the record establishes that the results of petitioner's urine sample, accurately identified by his department identification number, twice tested positive for the presence of opiates.
We also reject petitioner's assertion that the malfunctioning of the tape recorder requires reversal, especially where, as here, the Hearing Officer recalled a witness and attempted to reconstruct the record (see generally, Matter of McDonald v. Coughlin, 217 A.D.2d 770, 771, 629 N.Y.S.2d 505). Finally, a review of the record fails to support petitioner's assertion of Hearing Officer bias.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
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)