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: Juan SALDANA, Petitioner, v. Philip COOMBE Jr., as Commissioner of the 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of controlled substances. We reject his contention that inconsistencies in the test result procedure forms mandate annulment of the determination of his guilt. The correction officer who conducted the preliminary urinalysis test testified that he mistakenly noted on the procedure form that the results indicated the presence of marihuana. The calibration strips from the EMIT drug detection system in fact indicated that the test result was positive for opiates. Likewise, the confirmation test indicated the presence of opiates. Under these circumstances we find that the inadvertent recording error on the urinalysis test result forms does not constitute reversible error (see generally, Matter of Berrios v. Kuhlmann, 143 A.D.2d 475, 476, 532 N.Y.S.2d 593). Moreover, the determination of petitioner's guilt is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Maldonado v. Selsky, 162 A.D.2d 843, 557 N.Y.S.2d 746; see also, Matter of Holmes v. Coughlin, 182 A.D.2d 1121, 583 N.Y.S.2d 703). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be either without merit or unpreserved for our review.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: July 03, 1997
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)