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: Jose RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Glenn GOORD, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a certain prison disciplinary rule.
After the results of two urinalysis tests indicated the presence of opiates, petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with and found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from using controlled substances. The misbehavior report and positive results of the urinalysis tests, together with the testimony of a technician from the company that manufactures the testing apparatus verifying that the medications that petitioner was taking at the time his urine was tested would not produce a false positive for opiates, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Rodriguez v. Coombe, 249 A.D.2d 655, 671 N.Y.S.2d 195). Furthermore, given the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, we reject petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the chain of custody and adequacy of the testing procedures used (see, Matter of Bonaguro v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 849, 681 N.Y.S.2d 814; Matter of Medina v. Goord, 249 A.D.2d 655, 656, 670 N.Y.S.2d 809). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are preserved for our review, have been found to be unpersuasive.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: February 25, 1999
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)