Opinion
May 15, 1989
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, with costs, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the respondents' directive, ordering him to submit to urinalysis, was predicated upon a reasonable suspicion of drug use based upon information supplied by a confidential informant (see, Matter of Perez v Ward, 69 N.Y.2d 840). Moreover, the scientific tests which confirmed the presence of a controlled substance in samples of the petitioner's urine have been held to be reliable (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135; Matter of Brown v Scully, 137 A.D.2d 595; Peranzo v Coughlin, 608 F. Supp. 1504). Thus, we find that the respondents' determination that the petitioner had used a controlled substance, in violation of the respondents' regulations, is supported by substantial evidence.
We have examined the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.