From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bradstreet v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 20, 2000
268 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

January 20, 2000

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.

Andrew Bradstreet, Malone, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CREW III, PETERS and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Substantial evidence supports the determination of respondent finding petitioner, a prison inmate, guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance. The misbehavior report, together with the positive results of two urinalysis tests indicating the presence of cannabinoids and the testimony of the correction officer who performed one of the urinalysis tests, amply support the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Mitchell v. Selsky, 252 A.D.2d 639; Matter of Lorusso v. Goord, 248 A.D.2d 771). Furthermore, because the determination of petitioner's guilt was not based upon the confidential information which prompted the request for petitioner's urine sample, the Hearing Officer was not required to assess the credibility of the confidential informant (see, Matter of Rivera v. Goord, 258 A.D.2d 793; Matter of Mitchell v. Selsky, supra). Notwithstanding petitioner's contentions to the contrary, we find that the record demonstrates that the appropriate testing procedures were followed and that the chain of custody was sufficiently established (see,Matter of Frazier v. Goord, 251 A.D.2d 800, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 813). To the extent that petitioner's remaining contentions have been preserved for our review, we find them to be without merit.

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

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


Summaries of

Matter of Bradstreet v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 20, 2000
268 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Bradstreet v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANDREW BRADSTREET, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Jan 20, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
700 N.Y.S.2d 777

Citing Cases

Rowe v. Goord

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination finding him guilty of the drug use charge,…

Matter of Ross v. Goord

Upon review of petitioner's procedural arguments, we conclude that they are without merit. Initially, because…