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: Jesus FELICIANO, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, 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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
After a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with the unauthorized use of a controlled substance. He was found guilty of this charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
Contrary to petitioner's claim, the record reveals that the chain of custody of his urine specimen was properly established. The request for urinalysis form disclosed the time the sample was taken, when it was handled by the testing officer and when it was destroyed. The testing officer stated that he had control of the specimen the entire time and that it was not handled by any other officers. Inasmuch as the requirements of 7 NYCRR 1020.4 were satisfied, there was a proper foundation for the introduction of the positive test results (see Matter of Saif'Ul'Bait v. Goord, 15 A.D.3d 703, 704, 788 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2005]; Matter of Odome v. Goord, 14 A.D.3d 975, 975, 788 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2005] ). Although the request for urinalysis form did not specify the physical location of the specimen at each moment, this was not a requirement (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4[e] ). Considering the misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony at the hearing, substantial evidence supports the determination at issue (see Matter of Figueroa v. Goord, 15 A.D.3d 705, 706, 788 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2005]; Matter of Zippo v. Goord, 2 A.D.3d 1006, 1006, 768 N.Y.S.2d 406 [2003] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: April 28, 2005
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)