From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Alexander v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 2004
3 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94066.

Decided and Entered: January 8, 2004.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Dino Alexander, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. The misbehavior report, the positive test results and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Gonzalez v. Selsky, 301 A.D.2d 1019, 1019-1020). Contrary to petitioner's claim of hearing officer bias, the record discloses that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner (see Matter of Wilson v. Selsky, 287 A.D.2d 847). The Hearing Officer considered petitioner's defense that the four poppy seed bagels petitioner claimed to have eaten could have caused a false positive. The conflicting testimony from the correction officer who denied that she provided petitioner with bagels and from the representative of the SYVA corporation indicating that, although poppy seeds could cause a false positive, petitioner consumed only a small amount, presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to evaluate and resolve (see Matter of Gonzalez v. Selsky, supra at 1020; Matter of Goodwine v. Selsky, 299 A.D.2d 782, 782-783). To the extent that petitioner claims that he was denied the right to present a witness, the record establishes that the testimony of the witness requested would be irrelevant to the drug use charge (see Matter of Hynes v. Goord, 305 A.D.2d 829, 830, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 510; Matter of Loper v. McGinnis, 295 A.D.2d 777, 778).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Alexander v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 2004
3 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Alexander v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF DINO ALEXANDER, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, AS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 8, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 207

Citing Cases

Merritt v. Fischer

We reject petitioner's contention that the denial of his request to call the officers who conducted the…

In the Matter of Townes v. Goord

Moreover, petitioner's defense that false positive test results were caused by certain over-the-counter…