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: Vidal MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Bert ROSS, as Superintendent of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, 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, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances after two EMIT urinalysis tests resulted in positive readings for the presence of cannabinoids. Petitioner challenges the determination of his guilt on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Included in the evidence presented at petitioner's disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the two urinalysis tests that yielded positive results for the presence of cannabinoids. The fact that an inadvertent error was made by an employee who testified that he initially incorrectly typed in that the test results were negative is not dispositive here given the testimony and evidence establishing the correct result (see, Matter of Maldonado v. Selsky, 162 A.D.2d 843, 557 N.Y.S.2d 746). In our view, there was sufficient proof to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Bonilla v. Coombe, 221 A.D.2d 782, 633 N.Y.S.2d 668, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 807, 641 N.Y.S.2d 829, 664 N.E.2d 895). We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
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: October 16, 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)