From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Mohammad v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 9, 2005
19 A.D.3d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

96759.

June 9, 2005.

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.

Mohammad Mohammad, Auburn, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Nancy A. Speigel of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.


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

Based upon our review of the record, we find that the misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Van Dusen v. Selsky, 14 AD3d 979, 980; Matter of McCorkle v. Bennett, 8 AD3d 918, 919). Petitioner's defense that medications he was taking caused a false positive reading was refuted by the testimony of the technical assistant employed by the manufacturer of the testing equipment. Furthermore, although the lieutenant who authorized the test failed to sign the request for urinalysis form as required ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [b]), he testified that this was an oversight, he remembered authorizing the test and he signed the form at the hearing, thus curing any defect ( see e.g. Matter of Dalton v. Selsky, 6 AD3d 844, 845). In any event, petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by this error ( see Matter of Sabater v. Selsky, 4 AD3d 705, 706). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb respondent's determination.

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


Summaries of

In the Matter of Mohammad v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 9, 2005
19 A.D.3d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In the Matter of Mohammad v. Goord

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Jun 9, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
797 N.Y.S.2d 154

Citing Cases

Reyes v. Selsky

The misbehavior report and testimony of the reporting officer provide substantial evidence to support the…

Costner v. Goord

We confirm. Substantial evidence, in the form of the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and…