From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Dalton v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 8, 2004
6 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94361.

Decided and Entered: April 8, 2004.

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 the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

John Dalton, Romulus, petitioner pro se.

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

Before: Peters, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results for opiates, supporting documentation and the testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance (see Matter of Perkins v Goord, 308 A.D.2d 617, 617;Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 A.D.2d 486, 486). The request for urinalysis testing and the urinalysis procedure forms establish an adequate chain of custody and compliance with proper testing procedures. We are unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that the determination must be annulled because the urinalysis request form indicates that the test was approved by a sergeant two days prior to the actual urinalysis request being made. The sergeant explained the inadvertent error at the hearing and, in any event, such error does not affect the validity of the positive test results (see Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 A.D.2d 1026; Matter of Hilts v Selsky, 303 A.D.2d 809, 809-810, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 509). Petitioner's remaining contentions were not raised on administrative appeal and, therefore, are not preserved for our review (see Matter of Brisman v Senkowski, 278 A.D.2d 778, 779). In any event, were we to consider them, we would find them meritless.

Peters, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

In the Matter of Dalton v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 8, 2004
6 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Dalton v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF JOHN DALTON, Petitioner, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Director of…

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

Date published: Apr 8, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 912

Citing Cases

Spulka v. Selsky

Notations on the form reveal that no sample was provided and that petitioner was given at least three hours…

Smith v. Dubray

Although Directive No. 4937 was not, at the time of petitioner's hearing, filed as required with the…