Opinion
January 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Martin Stecher, J.].
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's determination that petitioner, on or about January 21, 1989, refused the lawful order of a superior officer directing petitioner to submit to a urinalysis. The testimony of the Department's witnesses established that petitioner, at the time of his arrest in New Jersey, was a passenger in a car together with two other individuals who were found to be in possession of cocaine, and that he was observed to have glassy, red, dilated eyes, as well as slurred speech. Based upon these specific objective facts, it was reasonable for the Department to suspect petitioner of drug use and to order that he submit to a urinalysis (see, Matter of Jefferson v Koehler, 159 A.D.2d 248). In view of the nature of the charges, we do not find the penalty imposed so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Perez v Ward, 69 N.Y.2d 840, rearg denied sub nom. Matter of King v McMickens, 69 N.Y.2d 985).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.