Coppins v. Cerio, 307 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Coppins v. Cerio, 307 A.D.2d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Paige v. Goord (nyappdiv, 2005-06-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paige v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s contention that he was taking medication which caused a false positive reading was contradicted by the testimony of a technician for the manufacturer of the testing equipment and presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Alexander v Goord, 3 AD3d 638 [2004]; Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 AD2d 486, 486 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dalton v. Selsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
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 AD2d 617, 617 [2003]; Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 AD2d 486, 486 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
As for the possession of a controlled substance charge, the third misbehavior report, coupled with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted a NIK test of the substance and the results of that test revealing the presence of heroin, provide substantial evidence supporting this charge (see Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 AD2d 486, 486 [2003]; Matter of Johnson v Goord, 305 AD2d 911, 911-912 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 510 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. Hessell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, the two positive urinalysis test results, along with substantiating documentation, a drug cross-reactivity manual and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 AD2d 486, 486 [2003]; Matter of Devivo v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 306 AD2d 600, 601 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perkins v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Our review of the record herein leads to the conclusion that substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report, the positive results of the two urinalysis tests with their supporting documentation and the hearing testimony given by the correction officer who prepared the misbehavior report after conducting the urinalysis testing procedures (see Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 AD2d 486, 486 [2003]; Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 301 AD2d 1019, 1020 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of John Coppins
v.
Richard Cerio, as Deputy Superintendent of Programs, Elmira Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 10, 2003.
307 A.D.2d 486
2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8039
Cited by 7 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 Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the unauthorized use of controlled substances after his urine tested positive for the presence of opiates. The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results with substantiating documentation, and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination (see Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 301 AD2d 1019 [2003]; Matter of Jimenez v Goord, 278 AD2d 577 [2000]). Petitioner’s claim that his urine yielded false positive test results due to fentanyl, a prescription medication he had ingested approximately two weeks prior to testing, was contradicted by testimony from a representative of the manufacturer of the urinalysis testing equipment, the correction officer who conducted the test on petitioner’s urine and a physician’s assistant at the facility. This conflict in the hearing testimony presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Goodwine v Selsky, 299 AD2d 782 [2002]) as did petitioner’s adamant denial that he had[*487] taken opiates (see Matter of Woods v Selsky, 291 AD2d 773, 774 [2002]).

We are unpersuaded by the contention that the determination is invalidated by the Hearing Officer’s failure to make an independent assessment of the credibility of the confidential informant whose information led to the testing of petitioner’s urine. There is no such requirement in cases where, as in this matter, the determination of guilt was based upon evidence that was entirely independent of the confidential information that triggered the investigation (see Matter of Arnett v Goord, 305 AD2d 832 [2003]; Matter of Busted v Goord, 283 AD2d 692 [2001]). The remaining contentions raised herein have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.