drug test in New York

2020Specialists, Inc.</i>, 91 AD3d 79 </a>, 90 [2011], <i>affd</i> 22 NY3d 1 [2013] ["a drug testing laboratory may be held liable in tort to the subject of a drug test for failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances"]).

2019Specialists, Inc. , 22 NY3d 1, 7 ; see Pasternack v Laboratory Corp. of Am.

2016Defense counsel then violated the collateral evidence rule when she not only referred to a lack of evidence supporting plaintiff’s assertion, but introduced the drug test result in evidence in an attempt to impeach plaintiff’s credibility (see Badr, 75 NY2d at 635 ; Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2011]).

2016Defense counsel then violated the collateral evidence rule when she not only referred to a lack of evidence supporting plaintiff’s assertion, but introduced the drug test result in evidence in an attempt to impeach plaintiff’s credibility (see Badr, 75 NY2d at 635 ; Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2011]).

2014With regard to petitioner’s claim that he was denied certain documents, the record demonstrates that he received the drug test results, he stated unequivocally that he was not requesting the unusual incident report and the documents pertaining to his urinalysis test were irrelevant to the question of his guilt with regard to the possession of a controlled substance (see Matter of Macedonio v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1313, 1313 [2014]; Matter of Toliver v New York State Commr. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 114 AD3d 987 , 987 [2014]).

2014With regard to petitioner’s claim that he was denied certain documents, the record demonstrates that he received the drug test results, he stated unequivocally that he was not requesting the unusual incident report and the documents pertaining to his urinalysis test were irrelevant to the question of his guilt with regard to the possession of a controlled substance (see Matter of Macedonio v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1313, 1313 [2014]; Matter of Toliver v New York State Commr. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 114 AD3d 987 , 987 [2014]).

2008No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 , 233 [1974]), and therefore should be annulled and the matter remanded to the Department for imposition of an appropriate, lesser penalty.

1998Further, accepting the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer (Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222 , 230), there was substantial evidence that petitioner refused the lawful order to submit to a drug test.

2002Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 ) to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of narcotics possession based on the drug test NIK report and the apprehending officers’ written report (see, Matter of Archie v Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 243 AD2d 808 ).

1989Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978].) We further find that the order that petitioner submit to a drug test was supported by reasonable suspicion as found in the record.

2000Inasmuch as claimant was aware of and signed an acknowledgment that he understood the terms and conditions of his employment, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s refusal to submit to the drug test constituted disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Flaherty [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 647[Matter of Grover [Waste-Stream, Inc. — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 809 ).

1997By refusing to submit to the drug test, claimant knowingly violated his employer’s policy, thereby engaging in misconduct (see, Matter of Grover [Waste-Stream— Sweeney], 233 AD2d 809, 810 ).

2013Under these circumstances, Family Court’s grant of sole custody to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Jeannemarie O. v Richard P., 94 AD3d at 1347 ; Matter of Raynore v Raynore, 92 AD3d at 1169 ).

2013Under these circumstances, Family Court’s grant of sole custody to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Jeannemarie O. v Richard P., 94 AD3d at 1347 ; Matter of Raynore v Raynore, 92 AD3d at 1169 ).

2013Under these circumstances, Family Court’s grant of sole custody to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Jeannemarie O. v Richard P., 94 AD3d at 1347 ; Matter of Raynore v Raynore, 92 AD3d at 1169 ).

2013Under these circumstances, Family Court’s grant of sole custody to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Jeannemarie O. v Richard P., 94 AD3d at 1347 ; Matter of Raynore v Raynore, 92 AD3d at 1169 ).

2003Since the drug test (EMIT) employed by the probation officer has been generally recognized as scientifically reliable and is accepted by the courts of this state, no scientific proof as to the reliability of such test is necessary (see id. at 144 ).

1995Even though the positive results of a drug test, confirmed with the results of a second test, provide substantial evidence supporting respondent’s determination (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138 ), petitioner contends that it should be annulled due to respondent’s failure to comply with 7 NYCRR 1020.4 (e) (1) (ii), which provides in relevant part that "[a] log book shall be kept in the vicinity of the refrigerator /freezer, and each person accessing the specimens shall note his name, the date, and the time of each such access”.

2002Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 ) to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of narcotics possession based on the drug test NIK report and the apprehending officers’ written report (see, Matter of Archie v Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 243 AD2d 808 ).

2000The misbehavior report, the testimony of its author, the positive results of a drug test performed on the substance and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the test provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Burse v Goord, 274 AD2d 678, 679 ; Matter of Archie v Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 243 AD2d 808 ).

1998Thus, the record as a whole indicates that the determinations of the Hearing Officer are supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 ).

1997Substantial evidence supports respondent’s finding that reasonable suspicion warranted a drug test, namely, the testimony of respondent’s investigating officer that he had been told by a police officer knowledgeable about petitioner’s arrest that one of the reasons for the arrest was drug possession (cf., Matter of Dickinson [State of New York], 188 AD2d 919 , lv denied 81 NY2d 708 ), the credibility of which is not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 ).

1990Petitioner’s own handwritten, notarized letter of September 17, 1987, together with the allegation of drug use made by his common-law wife, was sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for ordering the drug test (Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351 , affd 69 NY2d 840 ).

1990However, the record reveals that there is no basis to believe that petitioner had ever actually used illegal drugs (cf., Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351 , affd 69 NY2d 840 ) and that his refusal to take the drug test was made when his judgment was still impaired by the effects of his binge and he was still at the hospital being treated for severe alcohol abuse.

1990Petitioner’s own handwritten, notarized letter of September 17, 1987, together with the allegation of drug use made by his common-law wife, was sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for ordering the drug test (Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351 , affd 69 NY2d 840 ).

1990However, the record reveals that there is no basis to believe that petitioner had ever actually used illegal drugs (cf., Matter of King v McMickens, 120 AD2d 351 , affd 69 NY2d 840 ) and that his refusal to take the drug test was made when his judgment was still impaired by the effects of his binge and he was still at the hospital being treated for severe alcohol abuse.

2026As a preliminary matter, we note that, although defendant waived his right to appeal and the court's colloquy was consistent with the appropriate model colloquy ( see generally People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 567 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]), defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of the plea survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v McMurtry , 224 AD3d 1310 , 1310 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 984 [2024]; People v Gimenez , 59 AD3d 1088, 1088-1089 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 816 [2009]).

2026As a preliminary matter, we note that, although defendant waived his right to appeal and the court's colloquy was consistent with the appropriate model colloquy ( see generally People v Thomas , 34 NY3d 545 , 567 [2019], cert denied — US &mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]), defendant's challenges to the voluntariness of the plea survive even a valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v McMurtry , 224 AD3d 1310 , 1310 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 984 [2024]; People v Gimenez , 59 AD3d 1088, 1088-1089 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 816 [2009]).

2026The Caden N. court reasoned that the focus of both the vehicular manslaughter statute and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 "is on whether a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle has been compromised by the consumption of alcohol or drugs and to what extent," and that "[i]n effect, the greater a driver's ability to function has been compromised the greater the penalty imposed" ( 189 AD3d at 90 ).