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: Bernard COOPER, 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.
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 twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. The misbehavior report, positive test results and supporting documentation provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Dunn v. Selsky, 7 A.D.3d 938, 776 N.Y.S.2d 526 [2004] ). We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the change to the chain of custody form warrants annulment of the determination. There is no indication that petitioner's urine sample was tampered with or confused with another specimen (see Matter of Roman v. Selsky, 253 A.D.2d 975, 679 N.Y.S.2d 426 [1998] ). Rather, the correction to the chain of custody form was initialed and more accurately reflects the handling of petitioner's urine sample. Furthermore, the chain of custody establishing that the specimen was secured and the supporting documentation indicating that the appropriate testing procedures were followed provide the proper foundation for the reliance on the positive test results (see 7 NYCRR 1020.5; Matter of Kae v. Selsky, 279 A.D.2d 682, 719 N.Y.S.2d 310 [2001] ).
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: July 22, 2004
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)