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: Albert SPRINGS, Petitioner, v. Robert MURPHY, as Acting Director of the Department of Correctional Services Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Program, 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.
The detailed misbehavior report, results of two urinalysis tests indicating the presence of opiates and the testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating the disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances (see, Matter of Samuel v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 584, 715 N.Y.S.2d 113). Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the record establishes a proper foundation for the introduction of the results of the urinalysis tests. The information received from the manufacturer of the testing apparatus refuted petitioner's assertion that the medication he was taking would cause a false positive. Furthermore, the error in transcribing the reagent expiration date on the second urinalysis procedure form does not constitute reversible error. The correction officer who performed the tests explained that he inadvertently noted the year 1999 rather than 2000 as the reagent expiration date.
Next, we reject petitioner's assertion of Hearing Officer bias because she gave testimonial statements and testified on behalf of the correction officers. The record establishes that the Hearing Officer attempted to explain the witnesses' testimony to petitioner given petitioner's confusion regarding the testimony. In any event, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias and not from the substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Nieves v. Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 943, 944, 550 N.Y.S.2d 203). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without 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: May 03, 2001
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)