Opinion
June 3, 1997
Substantial evidence supports respondent's finding that reasonable suspicion warranted a drug test, namely, the testimony of respondent's investigating officer that he had been told by a police officer knowledgeable about petitioner's arrest that one of the reasons for the arrest was drug possession ( cf., Matter of Dickinson [State of New York], 188 A.D.2d 919, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 708), the credibility of which is not subject to judicial review ( see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444). Substantial evidence also supports respondent's findings that the test results were based upon the sample provided by petitioner and not caused by some outside contamination.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.