From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Smith v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 3, 2000
269 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 3, 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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Bernard Smith, Malone, petitioner in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of using a controlled substance in violation of a prison disciplinary rule after petitioner's urine specimen twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. In light of the two positive test results and the correctional facility nurse's testimony that petitioner's medications could not have caused a false positive test, substantial evidence supports the determination of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Aviles v. Selsky, 264 A.D.2d 883, 696 N.Y.S.2d 87). We find no error in the Hearing Officer's reliance on the testimony of the correctional facility nurse which refuted evidence submitted by petitioner that the prescription drug he was taking caused a false positive result (see, id.; Matter of Rodriguez v. Coombe, 249 A.D.2d 655). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Matter of Smith v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 3, 2000
269 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Smith v. Goord

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 811

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Vourderis v. Selsky

t was not approved by a lieutenant until after petitioner provided a urine sample (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [b]).…