From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lorino v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 23, 2003
309 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

93579

Decided and Entered: October 23, 2003.

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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Eugene Lorino, Beacon, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and, Lahtinen, 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 two urinalysis tests produced positive results for opiates. Initially, we note that by failing to raise any objection at the hearing, petitioner failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the introduction into evidence of the drug test results (see Matter of McDermott v. Selsky, 288 A.D.2d 669). In any event, the testing documentation indicating that appropriate testing procedures were followed was sufficient to establish the required proper foundation for reliance on the positive test results (see Matter of Rowe v. Goord, 289 A.D.2d 764). These test results, together with the misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Valerio v. Selsky, 306 A.D.2d 713; Matter of Springs v. Murphy, 283 A.D.2d 697). Although petitioner was taking prescription medication, the facility pharmacist refuted petitioner's claims that such medication would cause a false positive (see Matter of Jimenez v. Goord, 278 A.D.2d 577). Petitioner's remaining contentions, that he was denied the right to call a witness and the Hearing Officer was improperly appointed, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Lorino v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 23, 2003
309 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Lorino v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF EUGENE LORINO, Petitioner, v. ROBERT J. MURPHY, as ACTING…

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

Date published: Oct 23, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 131

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Vourderis v. Selsky

Initially, we reject petitioner's assertion that the urinalysis request was not approved by a lieutenant…

In the Matter of Torres v. Selsky

Petitioner contends that the determination must be annulled because, among other things, there was no proper…