From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Mtr. of Crosby v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 22, 2007
38 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 500899.

March 22, 2007.

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 which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Perry Crosby, Moravia, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Nancy A. Speigel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.


Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Contrary to petitioner's claim, the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court as his challenge to the chain of custody of the specimen raises a question of substantial evidence ( see Matter of Cooper v Selsky, 20 AD3d 832, 833). With regard to this claim, petitioner asserts that the wrong sample was tested inasmuch as the request for urinalysis form indicates that his urine specimen was destroyed on June 10, 2005 while the tests were conducted on June 13, 2005. However, this discrepancy was adequately explained by the testing officer who stated that he mistakenly wrote down June 10, 2005, instead of June 13, 2005, as the date the sample was destroyed ( see e.g. Matter of Zippo v Goord, 2 AD3d 1006, 1006). This testimony, together with the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Van Dusen v Selsky, 14 AD3d 979; Matter of Zippo v Goord, supra at 1006). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, have been considered and found to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

In re Mtr. of Crosby v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 22, 2007
38 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

In re Mtr. of Crosby v. Goord

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Mar 22, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2451
833 N.Y.S.2d 674

Citing Cases

Walker v. Annucci

Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued. Initially, we note that although petitioner's…

Smith v. Fischer

Contrary to petitioner's claim, the chain of custody of the sample was properly maintained as evidenced by…