Opinion
March 8, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dontzin, J.).
After making an off-duty arrest, which proved to be baseless, petitioner was seen in a questionable state. Her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, her pupils dilated, she was extremely nervous and her speech was impaired. She was thereafter ordered to submit to a urinalysis and did so. The results of the analysis showed positive for cocaine and cannabis.
On a subsequent occasion, petitioner was arrested for refusing to pay a cab fare. She then refused to submit to a urinalysis. After a hearing and opportunity to rebut the allegations, the petitioner was found guilty of ingesting cocaine and cannabis and of refusing the second test and was ultimately dismissed from her position.
On appeal, petitioner urges that there was not sufficient reason to order her to submit to the urinalysis on either occasion, and thus the determination must be annulled. This argument is meritless.
On two recent occasions this court found that similar symptoms justified a finding of reasonable suspicion to order a test. (Matter of Patchoque-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ., 70 N.Y.2d 57.)
Nothing advanced by the petitioner suggests that another conclusion should be drawn in this instance. (Matter of Umpierre v City of New York, 141 A.D.2d 1008 [1st Dept 1988]; Matter of Hollingsworth v Koehler, 143 A.D.2d 544 [1st Dept], lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 703.)
Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.