Opinion
June 19, 1995
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the directive of a superior officer ordering the petitioner to submit to a urinalysis, commonly known as a Dole test, was predicated on reasonable suspicion of the petitioner's drug use, which was based on information supplied, in part, by two confidential informants (see, Matter of Perez v. Ward, 69 N.Y.2d 840; Matter of McCullon v. Meehan, 150 A.D.2d 578). The Administrative Law Judge properly determined that the information supplied by the two confidential informants was reliable. While neither informant had a past history of supplying reliable information, the information provided by the first informant was corroborated by other events that New York City Transit Police Department investigators had observed (see, e.g., People v. Preston,
115 A.D.2d 997), and the second informant's credibility was established by her relationship with the petitioner (see, e.g., Matter of Taylor v. Raiford, 159 A.D.2d 309). Thus, the determination that the petitioner had used cocaine, in violation of New York City Transit Police Department regulations, is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Boyd v. Constantine, 81 N.Y.2d 189; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176; Matter of Ausch v. Commissioner of State of N Y Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 166 A.D.2d 704).
Under the circumstances of this case, we do not find the penalty of dismissal to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222; see also, Matter of Perez v. Ward, supra; Matter of Martinez v. Ward, 166 A.D.2d 392; Matter of Palmer v. Koehler, 156 A.D.2d 242; Matter of McCullon v. Meehan, supra).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.