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: Mario RUSSO, Petitioner, v. Donald SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing Unit for Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging an administrative determination finding him guilty of using a controlled substance. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the two positive test results indicating the presence of opiates, together with the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who performed the tests, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 143, 524 N.Y.S.2d 30, 518 N.E.2d 924). The fact that an inadvertent clerical error was made by a correction officer in transcribing a test number onto the inventory form provided to petitioner does not, under the particular circumstances here, mandate a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Martinez v. Ross, 243 A.D.2d 914, 663 N.Y.S.2d 356, appeal dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 887, 668 N.Y.S.2d 565, 691 N.E.2d 637; Matter of Maldonado v. Selsky, 162 A.D.2d 843, 844, 557 N.Y.S.2d 746). There is no dispute that the test numbers contained in the urinalysis test request form, the urinalysis procedure form and EMIT calibration slips coincided. We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: April 16, 1998
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)