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: John SUGGS, Petitioner, v. David L. MILLER, as Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Inasmuch as the misbehavior report, positive test results and supporting documentation, together with the testimony at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Paige v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 908, 797 N.Y.S.2d 180 [2005]; Matter of Sow v. Selsky, 7 A.D.3d 903, 904, 775 N.Y.S.2d 919 [2004] ). Furthermore, it was within the province of the Hearing Officer to resolve the credibility issue arising from petitioner's defense that the medications he was taking resulted in the positive test results and the contrary testimony from a technician specialist employed by the manufacturer of the testing equipment that, although not individually tested, the differing chemical and molecular structures between the subject medications and cannabis would not result in a false positive (see Matter of Figueroa v. Goord, 15 A.D.3d 705, 788 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2005]; Matter of Townes v. Goord, 14 A.D.3d 754, 755, 786 N.Y.S.2d 855 [2005] ).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: October 20, 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)