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: George LUNNEY, 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 controlled substances after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. Inasmuch as the misbehavior report and the positive test results, together with the testimony at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Hayes v. Goord, 26 A.D.3d 546, 807 N.Y.S.2d 739 [2006]; Matter of Molina v. Selsky, 21 A.D.3d 1238, 1238-1239, 801 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2005] ). The testimony of the facility nurse and the correction officer who performed the test refuted petitioner's claim that certain medications he had received caused a false positive test result, thus creating a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Figueroa v. Goord, 15 A.D.3d 705, 706, 788 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2005]; Matter of Vourderis v. Selsky, 4 A.D.3d 667, 668, 771 N.Y.S.2d 753 [2004] ).
Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim of ineffective employee assistance, have been reviewed and determined 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: November 09, 2006
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)