From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Vourderis v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 19, 2004
4 A.D.3d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94685.

Decided and Entered: February 19, 2004.

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.

Dean Vourderis, Romulus, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. Initially, we reject petitioner's assertion that the urinalysis request was not approved by a lieutenant until after petitioner provided a urine sample (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [b]). Any error with respect to the request for urine test form was adequately explained at the hearing and, in any event, "had no effect on the validity of the positive test results" (Matter of Samuel v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 584, 585).

The misbehavior report, supporting documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lorino v. Murphy, 309 A.D.2d 1037). While the correction officer who tested the urine sample failed to contact medical personnel despite being aware that petitioner was taking medications, any error in this regard was harmless inasmuch as a correction facility nurse testified at the hearing that no medications given to petitioner during the period in question would cause a false positive (see Matter of Martinez v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 273 A.D.2d 663, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 763;Matter of Smith v. Goord, 269 A.D.2d 650). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including that the urinalysis testing forms were incomplete and the hearing officer was biased, are either unpreserved for our review or without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

In the Matter of Vourderis v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 19, 2004
4 A.D.3d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Vourderis v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF DEAN VOURDERIS, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, AS DIRECTOR…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 19, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 753

Citing Cases

Sheppard v. Bezio

We first reject petitioner's assertion that the omission on the urinalysis test form of a description of the…

Lunney v. Selsky

Inasmuch as the misbehavior report and the positive test results, together with the testimony at the hearing,…