Davis v. Goord, 8 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Davis v. Goord, 8 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Carter v. Annucci (nyappdiv, 2018-11-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Carter v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and the related documentation and the testimony adduced at the hearing constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Harriott v Annucci , 131 AD3d 754 , 754 [2015], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 1028 [2016]; Matter of Thompson v Goord , 37 AD3d 914, 914 [2007]; Matter of Davis v Goord , 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sheppard v. Bezio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Based on our review of the record, and as acknowledged by the Hearing Officer, all appropriate documentation was provided, and was sufficient to establish a proper foundation for the results (see Matter of Johnson v Selsky, 14 AD3d 755, 756 [2005]; Matter of Davis v Goord, 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, the positive results of two EMIT tests with supporting documents and the testimony of two correction officers, one of whom took the urine sample and the other of whom tested the sample, constitute substantial evidence in support of the disciplinary determination (see Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135,138 [1987]; Matter of White v Selsky, 32 AD3d 1101, 1101 [2006]; Matter of Davis v Goord, 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Toney v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record establishes that the positive test result was reliable inasmuch as it reveals that petitioner’s urine sample was properly handled and the testing procedures, including a check for cross-reactivity of petitioner’s prescribed medication, were properly followed (see Matter of Figueroa v Goord, 15 AD3d 705, 706 [2005]; Matter of Van Dusen v Selsky, 14 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]; Matter of Davis v Goord, 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]; see also 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d] [2], [5]; [e]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Selsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Based upon our review of the record, however, we find that appropriate testing procedures were followed and the chain of custody was properly established so as to ensure the reliability of the positive test results (see Matter of Davis v Goord, 8 AD3d 854, 855 [2004]; Matter of Dunn v Selsky, 7 AD3d 938, 938-939 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Alvin Davis
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 17, 2004.
8 A.D.3d 854
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8542
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

[*855] Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine sample twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the urinalysis request forms establish, and the testimony confirms, that the urine sample was properly handled in accordance with the appropriate procedures and an unbroken chain of custody was maintained (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d] [2], [5]; [e]; Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 AD2d 1026 [2003]). There is no requirement that after a urine sample is provided the specimen bottle be sealed (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d] [2]). Furthermore, the documentation relating to the urinalysis testing, which indicates that the relevant testing procedures were followed, is sufficient to establish a proper foundation to rely on the test results (see Matter of Lorino v Murphy, 309 AD2d 1037 [2003]). Although petitioner maintains that the urine sample he provided on November 27, 2002 should have been tested in order to verify the positive test result at issue, it is well settled that an EMIT test result when confirmed by a second test is sufficiently reliable and can constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt (see Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 143 [1987]; Matter of Shaffer v Hoke, 174 AD2d 787, 789 [1991]). To the extent that petitioner’s remaining contentions have been preserved for our review, we find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.