Opinion
November 4, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
During an investigation into drug use by transit police officers, the transit police internal affairs unit received information from a confidential informant that petitioner used cocaine regularly. The confidential informant, who was registered with the transit police and whose reliability had been established on prior occasions, provided detailed accounts of such cocaine use, and established his knowledge of petitioner's personal life. Surveillance corroborated several details provided by the confidential informant, although surveillance did not directly observe petitioner ingest cocaine. After petitioner's fellow officer and social companion tested positive for drug use, petitioner was directed to submit to a urine test. When petitioner tested positive for cocaine, he was suspended. After a departmental hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended termination.
Petitioner does not have an absolute right to disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant, or of any other information. The hearings held in disciplinary proceedings are not governed by the rules obtaining at a criminal trial (cf., People v Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, 583, cert denied ___ US ___, 113 S Ct 1854). The ALJ diligently evaluated the reliability of the confidential informant, and the informant's fear for personal safety, in his in camera review, and we find no basis to disturb his findings. Defendant's challenge to the chain of custody of his urine sample is meritless (see, Matter of Gdanski v New York City Tr. Auth., 166 A.D.2d 590) and the reliability of the testing procedure has been judicially recognized (Phifer v Gunn, 143 A.D.2d 992, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 608). The court below properly dismissed the petition as against respondents Kramer and the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (Matter of Canty v Spooner, 194 A.D.2d 396).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.