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: James L. ROUSE, Petitioner, v. Glenn S. GOORD, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to the 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 prison disciplinary rule.
The positive results of two urinalysis tests indicating the presence of cannabinoids, together with the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests and authored the misbehavior report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner, a prison inmate, was guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances (see, Matter of Lopez v. Goord, 242 A.D.2d 816, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1026). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the fact that the daily log failed to indicate that the urinalysis test was requested based upon suspicion of petitioner's drug use does not render the urinalysis test results unreliable. In any event, the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis test testified that “suspicion” was inadvertently redacted from the daily log. Moreover, the correction officer testified that he complied with the relevant regulatory procedures in conducting a full scan of petitioner's urine sample. Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his challenges to the Hearing Officer's resolution of credibility issues, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 11, 1998
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)