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: John T. YOUNG, 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 was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court as the petition raised an issue of substantial evidence (see CPLR 7804[g]; Matter of Hamilton v. Selsky, 13 A.D.3d 844, 845, 785 N.Y.S.2d 811 [2004], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 704, 801 N.Y.S.2d 1, 834 N.E.2d 780 [2005] ). Upon reviewing the record, we find that the misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Burgos-Morales v. Goord, 22 A.D.3d 999, 1000, 802 N.Y.S.2d 388 [2005]; Matter of Wigfall v. Goord, 20 A.D.3d 799, 800, 798 N.Y.S.2d 582 [2005] ). Petitioner's defense that he did not provide a urine sample on the date in question and that the sample tested belonged to another inmate with the same last name presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jude v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 535, 535, 716 N.Y.S.2d 619 [2000] ). Moreover, petitioner was not improperly denied documentary evidence establishing that he was randomly selected for the drug test inasmuch as the requested document was not available (see Matter of Burse v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 678, 679, 710 N.Y.S.2d 201 [2000] ), and he was provided with another document containing the same information (see Matter of Benton v. Coombe, 242 A.D.2d 763, 764, 662 N.Y.S.2d 276 [1997] ). His remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or are 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: August 03, 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)