IN RE: Edward SCHNITTKER

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: Edward SCHNITTKER, Petitioner, v. Donald P. SELSKY, as Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Decided: November 29, 2001

Before:  CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ. Edward Schnittker, Malone, petitioner pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of controlled substances or narcotic drugs after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids.   Substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report and the positive urinalysis test results with supporting documentation (see, Matter of Jackson v. Portuondo, 281 A.D.2d 740, 721 N.Y.S.2d 575;  Matter of Bacchi v. Lacy, 267 A.D.2d 524, 698 N.Y.S.2d 920).   In addition, testimony was given by an experienced technical representative employed by SYVA, the manufacturer of the urinalysis kit used to test petitioner's urine.   She expressed her confidence in the reliability of the test and opined that the medications being taken by petitioner immediately prior to urinalysis testing would not have yielded false positive test results (see, Matter of Harris v. Goord, 273 A.D.2d 599, 710 N.Y.S.2d 550, lv. dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 917, 719 N.Y.S.2d 645, 742 N.E.2d 120).   As there was substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt, the determination is confirmed (see, Matter of Baez v. Sabourin, 283 A.D.2d 749, 724 N.Y.S.2d 368).   The remaining contentions raised herein, including petitioner's claim of Hearing Officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Copied to clipboard