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: Roberto HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael McGINNIS, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
The positive results of two urinalysis tests indicating the presence of marihuana, together with the misbehavior report and the testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner, a prison inmate, guilty of using a controlled substance in violation of a prison disciplinary rule (see, Matter of Bonilla v. Coombe, 221 A.D.2d 782, 633 N.Y.S.2d 668, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 807, 641 N.Y.S.2d 829, 664 N.E.2d 895). Although petitioner was taking medication at the time of the urinalysis test, both a correction officer who conducted one of the urinalysis tests and a nurse at the correction facility testified that the medication would not have caused a false positive for marihuana. Furthermore, we reject petitioner's contention that respondents failed to comply with the relevant regulations governing urinalysis testing procedures or failed to conduct the appropriate inquiries. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are either without merit or not properly before this court.
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: 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)