Opinion
November 24, 1998
Accepting respondents' credibility determination ( see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444), the record provides substantial evidence that petitioner knowingly and wrongfully associated with persons known to be engaged in criminal activity. Respondents properly accepted the hearsay statements of two informants, whose reliability was corroborated by police surveillance observations and investigation ( see, Matter of Perez v. Ward, 69 N.Y.2d 840).
The record also supports the determination that there was reasonable suspicion to order petitioner to undergo drug testing ( supra), based on the corroborated information supplied by the informants, as well as on police surveillance observations.
The use of hair analysis drug testing has been held to be reliable by this Court ( see, Matter of Brown v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 546, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 810). The record supports the finding that neither a mistake in transcribing the subject identification number nor the improper placement of test tubes in the centrifuge (which resulted in retesting), in any way affected the accuracy of the test results ( see, Matter of Allen v. Police Dept., 240 A.D.2d 229), and there is otherwise no basis in the record to disturb respondents' determination regarding the accuracy of the tests performed ( see, Matter of Bonilla v. Kelly, 213 A.D.2d 264).
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.