request for urinalysis test in New York

2011Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the chain of custody of the sample was established in accordance with the regulatory requirements as is evidenced by the information on the request for urinalysis test form and the testimony of the officer who tested the sample (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1]; Matter of Stanford v Fischer, 77 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Matter of Ortiz v Fischer, 75 AD3d 1042, 1042 [2010]).

2011Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the chain of custody of the sample was adequately established by the testimony of the testing officer and the information contained on the request for urinalysis test form (see Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 81 AD3d at 1018 ; Matter of Stanford v Fischer, 77 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]).

2013Here, the evidence at the hearing, including, among other things, the hearing testimony, the results of the urinalysis test, and the request for urinalysis test, provided substantial evidence that the petitioner was guilty of violating the charged prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]; Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858, 858 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1103 [1992]; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983 [1985]).

2013Here, the evidence at the hearing, including, among other things, the hearing testimony, the results of the urinalysis test, and the request for urinalysis test, provided substantial evidence that the petitioner was guilty of violating the charged prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]; Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858, 858 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1103 [1992]; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983 [1985]).

2013Here, the evidence at the hearing, including, among other things, the hearing testimony, the results of the urinalysis test, and the request for urinalysis test, provided substantial evidence that the petitioner was guilty of violating the charged prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]; Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858, 858 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1103 [1992]; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983 [1985]).

2013The request for urinalysis test form demonstrated the proper chain of custody (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f]; Quartieri v Goord, 251 AD2d 849, 850 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d at 907 ; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d at 1103-1104 ).

2013Here, the evidence at the hearing, including, among other things, the hearing testimony, the results of the urinalysis test, and the request for urinalysis test, provided substantial evidence that the petitioner was guilty of violating the charged prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]; Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858, 858 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1103 [1992]; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983 [1985]).

2013The request for urinalysis test form demonstrated the proper chain of custody (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f]; Quartieri v Goord, 251 AD2d 849, 850 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d at 907 ; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d at 1103-1104 ).

2013The request for urinalysis test form demonstrated the proper chain of custody (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f]; Quartieri v Goord, 251 AD2d 849, 850 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d at 907 ; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d at 1103-1104 ).

2013The request for urinalysis test form demonstrated the proper chain of custody (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f]; Quartieri v Goord, 251 AD2d 849, 850 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d at 907 ; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d at 1103-1104 ).

2013Here, the evidence at the hearing, including, among other things, the hearing testimony, the results of the urinalysis test, and the request for urinalysis test, provided substantial evidence that the petitioner was guilty of violating the charged prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]; Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858, 858 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1103 [1992]; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983 [1985]).

2013Here, the evidence at the hearing, including, among other things, the hearing testimony, the results of the urinalysis test, and the request for urinalysis test, provided substantial evidence that the petitioner was guilty of violating the charged prison disciplinary rule (see Matter of Martinez v Selsky, 53 AD3d 989 [2008]; Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858, 858 [1998]; Matter of Gatson v Selsky, 220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]; Matter of McGill v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1103, 1103 [1992]; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981, 983 [1985]).

2012The testing officer stated that he followed the necessary procedures for handling and test ing the sample and explained that he had possession of the sample in the testing room from the time it was taken until it was destroyed, in accordance with the information set forth on the request for urinalysis test form (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Valdez v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1529 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see also 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d]).

2012The testing officer stated that he followed the necessary procedures for handling and test ing the sample and explained that he had possession of the sample in the testing room from the time it was taken until it was destroyed, in accordance with the information set forth on the request for urinalysis test form (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Valdez v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1529 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see also 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d]).

2011Moreover, inasmuch as the determination was not based upon any confidential information, it was not incumbent upon the Hearing Officer to independently assess the credibility of the confidential source (see Matter of McAdoo v Goord, 32 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2006]; Matter of Arnett v Goord, 305 AD2d 832 [2003]).

2008Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the chain of custody of the sample was properly maintained as evidenced by the information on the request for urinalysis test form and the testimony of the officers who collected and tested the sample (see Matter of McAdoo v Goord, 32 AD3d 1058, 1058 [2006]; Matter of Molina v Selsky, 21 AD3d 1238, 1238 [2005]).

2018Accordingly, petitioner's challenge to the chain of custody is unpersuasive ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d at 1226-1227 ; Matter of Lyons v Annucci , 152 AD3d 1099, 1100 [*2][2017]).

2018Although the request for urinalysis test form stated that the request was based upon "suspicion," the Hearing Officer did not rely on confidential information, and the circumstances leading to the test request were therefore irrelevant ( see Matter of Smith v Venettozzi , 145 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 910 [2017]; Matter of Selah v LaValley , 117 AD3d 1261, 1261-1262 [2014]).

2018Although the request for urinalysis test form stated that the request was based upon "suspicion," the Hearing Officer did not rely on confidential information, and the circumstances leading to the test request were therefore irrelevant ( see Matter of Smith v Venettozzi , 145 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 910 [2017]; Matter of Selah v LaValley , 117 AD3d 1261, 1261-1262 [2014]).

2018While a date discrepancy indeed existed in the chain of custody section of the request for urinalysis test form, the correction officer who performed the test explained that this was a clerical error and confirmed that the actual testing dates and times were accurate ( see Matter of Belle v Prack , 140 AD3d 1509, 1510 [2016]; Matter of Green v Annucci , 134 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2015]).

2018While a date discrepancy indeed existed in the chain of custody section of the request for urinalysis test form, the correction officer who performed the test explained that this was a clerical error and confirmed that the actual testing dates and times were accurate ( see Matter of Belle v Prack , 140 AD3d 1509, 1510 [2016]; Matter of Green v Annucci , 134 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2015]).

2011Moreover, while petitioner maintained that testing equipment produced false positive results because of authorized medications that he was taking, the SYVA representative specifically refuted this theory, thereby presenting a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Livingston v Fischer, 52 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]; Matter of Booker v Artus, 51 AD3d 1235 [2008]).

2011Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the chain of custody of the sample was established in accordance with the regulatory requirements as is evidenced by the information on the request for urinalysis test form and the testimony of the officer who tested the sample (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [e] [1]; Matter of Stanford v Fischer, 77 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]; Matter of Ortiz v Fischer, 75 AD3d 1042, 1042 [2010]).

2009Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the validity of the test results was not undermined by the time discrepancy on the chain of custody portion of the request for urinalysis test form inasmuch as this clerical error was adequately explained by the correction officer who handled the sample (see Matter of Harrison v Fischer, 56 AD3d 917 , 917 [2008]; Matter of Smart v Goord, 266 AD2d 606, 607 [1999]).