Opinion
June 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Washington County.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the employee assistant obtained all relevant documents and information that were reasonably related to his defense (see, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann, 143 A.D.2d 475, 477) and, in any event, petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice resulting from any alleged failure to comply with the regulations (see, Matter of Serrano v Coughlin, 152 A.D.2d 790, 792). In addition, the documentary evidence demonstrates that appropriate procedures were followed with respect to the urinalysis tests (see, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann, supra, at 477; Matter of Newman v. Coughlin, 110 A.D.2d 981, 983). Finally, insofar as the finding of guilt was not based on any confidential information but on the two positive EMIT tests, petitioner's claims concerning the necessity to assess the reliability of the confidential informant lack merit (see, Matter of Grochulski v. Kuhlmann, 176 A.D.2d 1111, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 755; Matter of Siders v. Le Fevre, 145 A.D.2d 874). Such evidence constitutes the substantial evidence required to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135; Matter of Berrios v. Kuhlmann, supra, at 476). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
Weiss, P.J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.