Samuel v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Samuel v. Goord, 277 A.D.2d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Bonds v. Annucci (nyappdiv, 2018-11-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Bonds v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
As to the legality of the search, even assuming — [*2]without deciding — that petitioner preserved this issue for our review, he failed to question the correction sergeant who authorized the search as to the basis therefor, and the Hearing Officer was not required to explore this issue on petitioner's behalf ( see Matter of Retamozzo v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. , 31 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2006]; Matter of Samuel v Goord , 277 AD2d 584, 585 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. Fischer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
This clerical error was adequately explained by the correction officer who administered the test and, as such, did not undermine the validity of the test results under the circumstances presented here (see Matter of Samuel v Goord, 277 AD2d 584, 585 [2000]; Matter of Muniz v Selsky, 274 AD2d 796, 797 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Townes v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s assertion that he was improperly precluded from calling two correction officers as witnesses on his behalf is unavailing as the record reveals that he never requested testimony from one of the officers (see Matter of Walton v Goord, 290 AD2d 764, 764 [2002]; Matter of Samuel v Goord, 277 AD2d 584, 585 [2000]) and the other officer was not present when the incident occurred and therefore had no direct knowledge of the underlying events (see Matter of Brown v Goord, 11 AD3d 857, 858 [2004]; Matter of Pulliam v Waite, 8 AD3d 841, 841 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Retamozzo v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Although petitioner points to the fact that the author of the misbehavior report failed to testify, petitioner did not request him as a witness and the Hearing Officer was under no obligation to present petitioner’s case for him (see Matter of Samuel v Goord, 277 AD2d 584, 585 [2000]; Matter of Cowart v Selsky, 260 AD2d 883, 884 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vourderis v. Selsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Any error with respect to the request for urine test form was adequately explained at the hearing and, in any event, “had no effect on the validity of the positive test results” (Matter of Samuel v Goord, 277 AD2d 584, 585 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Bennett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
It is apparent that this clerical error had no prejudicial impact upon the outcome of petitioner’s case nor does it indicate that petitioner’s hearing was conducted in other than a fair and impartial manner (see Matter of Samuel v Goord, 277 AD2d 584, 585 [2000]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Papadas v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Matter of Brinson v Safir , 255 AD2d 247 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999]; see also Matter of Samuel v Goord , 277 AD2d 584, 585 [3d Dept 2000]).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Papadas v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Matter of Brinson v Safir , 255 AD2d 247 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999]; see also Matter of Samuel v Goord , 277 AD2d 584, 585 [3d Dept 2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Floyd Samuel
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 2, 2000.
277 A.D.2d 584
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11133
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

—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.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the two positive test results indicating the presence of opiates, together with the misbehavior report and[*585] testimony of the Lieutenant who supervises the drug testing program, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Garcia v Goord, 273 AD2d 560). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the clerical error of failing to transcribe a test number on the second urinalysis procedure form does not, under the circumstances here, constitute reversible error (see, Matter of Muniz v Selsky, 274 AD2d 796; Matter of Russo v Selsky, 249 AD2d 738, 739). In addition to the Lieutenant’s testimony that the clerical error had no effect on the validity of the positive test results, the test numbers and test results are verified by the daily test log.

Notwithstanding petitioner’s contention to the contrary, the Hearing Officer was not required to call the author of the misbehavior report to explain the absence of the testing number inasmuch as petitioner never requested such testimony and the Hearing Officer is under no obligation to present . petitioner’s case for him (see, Matter of Cowart v Selsky, 260 AD2d 883, 884). In any event, the testimony of the Lieutenant adequately addressed petitioner’s concern regarding the transcription error.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his challenge to the chain of custody and claim of Hearing Officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.