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 TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. Thomas POOLE, as Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the unauthorized possession of a controlled substance after his urine tested positive for the presence of marihuana. Substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt was presented in the form of the misbehavior report, prepared by the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis laboratory tests, together with the positive test results and their supporting documentation (see Matter of Willingham v. Goord, 296 A.D.2d 792, 793, 745 N.Y.S.2d 496; Matter of Taylor v. Taylor, 290 A.D.2d 778, 736 N.Y.S.2d 202).
To the extent that petitioner contends that he cannot properly be found guilty of using marihuana because he was not issued a copy of the 1998 revised edition of the “Department of Correctional Services Standards of Inmate Behavior Rule Book,” the first edition of the rule book to include rule 113.24, which prohibits inmates from the unauthorized use of either “narcotics” or “controlled substances,” we find this argument to be unavailing. Inmates are prohibited from using “controlled substances” in the current and previous editions of the rule book (petitioner admits to owning the 1991 and 1996 editions), and marihuana is defined by statute as a “controlled substance” (see Public Health Law § 3306 [Schedule I] [d][13] ). Hence, petitioner was on notice that this conduct was prohibited at the time he perpetrated it. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
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: January 02, 2003
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)