From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ellison v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 20, 2000
274 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

July 20, 2000.

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

Walter Ellison, Pine City, petitioner in person.

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

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannibinoids. The misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see,Matter of Struble v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 845). Petitioner's contention that his urine sample was confused with that of another inmate raised a credibility issue properly resolved by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Bonaguro v. Goord, 256 A.D.2d 849). We also reject petitioner's contention that the failure to refrigerate his urine sample prior to testing violated respondent's procedure regulations. Refrigeration is required only if the sample is not tested "immediately" ( 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1] [ii]). Inasmuch as petitioner's urine sample was kept in a secure area (see, 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1] [i]) and was tested approximately three hours after it was obtained, there is no basis to disturb the conclusion that the refrigeration requirement was not violated (see, Matter of Peterson v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 739).

Also without merit is petitioner's contention that his prehearing assistance was inadequate and violated his constitutional rights. The record reveals that although petitioner initially was given the wrong procedure forms, the Hearing Officer acted diligently to cure the alleged deficiency (see, Matter of West v. Costello, 270 A.D.2d 673, 705 N.Y.S.2d 417). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent they have been preserved, have been examined and found to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Matter of Ellison v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 20, 2000
274 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Ellison v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF WALTER ELLISON, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Jul 20, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 573

Citing Cases

Tingue v. McCoy

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the…

Moretti v. Selsky

This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. Substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior…