From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Moolenaar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 2009
67 A.D.3d 1296 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 507027.

November 25, 2009.

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.

Darrell Moolenaar, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur.


Petitioner, suspected of marihuana use, was required to submit a urine sample, which twice tested positive for cannabinoids. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of using a controlled substance. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis tests and the testimony of the correction officer who collected the urine sample and performed the tests provide substantial evidence to support the determination ( see Matter of Lopez v Fischer, 60 AD3d 1180; Matter of Smith v Fischer, 54 AD3d 1083, 1084). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the chain of custody was properly established as the officer who performed the tests had the sample in his possession at all times ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1] [i]; Matter of McAdoo v Goord, 32 AD3d 1058, 1058-1059; Matter of Odome v Goord, 14 AD3d 975, 975-976).

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


Summaries of

In re Moolenaar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 2009
67 A.D.3d 1296 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

In re Moolenaar

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DARRELL MOOLENAAR, Petitioner, v. BRIAN FISCHER, as…

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

Date published: Nov 25, 2009

Citations

67 A.D.3d 1296 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8743
888 N.Y.S.2d 807

Citing Cases

Sutton v. Prack

We find no merit to petitioner's claim that the chain of custody was broken because the sample was left out…