random drug test in New York

2008The penalty of termination for testing positive for marijuana during a random drug test under a zero tolerance policy in effect at the time of the decision does not shock the conscience (see Trotta v Ward, 77 NY2d 827 [1991]; Matter of Kirk v City of New York, 47 AD3d 406 [2008]; Matter of McGovern v Safir, 266 AD2d 107 [1999]).

2002Thus, it is clear that the hearing officer’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Seeley v City of New York, 269 AD2d 205 ; Matter of McGovern v Safir, 266 AD2d 107 ).

2024Id. at 860 .

2008The penalty of termination for testing positive for marijuana during a random drug test under a zero tolerance policy in effect at the time of the decision does not shock the conscience (see Trotta v Ward, 77 NY2d 827 [1991]; Matter of Kirk v City of New York, 47 AD3d 406 [2008]; Matter of McGovern v Safir, 266 AD2d 107 [1999]).

2008Such determination was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Powell v City of Newburgh, 284 AD2d 334 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 720 [2001]; Matter of Gibson v Koehler, 165 AD2d 768 [1990]).

2008The penalty of termination for testing positive for marijuana during a random drug test under a zero tolerance policy in effect at the time of the decision does not shock the conscience (see Trotta v Ward, 77 NY2d 827 [1991]; Matter of Kirk v City of New York, 47 AD3d 406 [2008]; Matter of McGovern v Safir, 266 AD2d 107 [1999]).

2008Such determination was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Powell v City of Newburgh, 284 AD2d 334 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 720 [2001]; Matter of Gibson v Koehler, 165 AD2d 768 [1990]).

2004Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated due to misconduct (see Matter of Rizza [Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 795 [2001]; Matter of Cumberland [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 867 [1998]).

2002Thus, it is clear that the hearing officer’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Seeley v City of New York, 269 AD2d 205 ; Matter of McGovern v Safir, 266 AD2d 107 ).

2001Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 ; Matter of Andresen v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 227 AD2d 617 ).

2001We find no error in the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board remanding the matter for further development of the record concerning the testing procedures and chain of custody of the urine specimen (see, Labor Law § 621 [3]; see also, Matter of Cumberland [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 867 ; Matter of Gilbert [United States Custom Serv. — Sweeney], 232 AD2d 709 ) or to eradicate any procedural or recording deficiencies resulting from the initial remand hearing (see, Matter of Foster, 262 AD2d 899 , lov denied 94 NY2d 760 ).

2001We find no error in the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board remanding the matter for further development of the record concerning the testing procedures and chain of custody of the urine specimen (see, Labor Law § 621 [3]; see also, Matter of Cumberland [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 867 ; Matter of Gilbert [United States Custom Serv. — Sweeney], 232 AD2d 709 ) or to eradicate any procedural or recording deficiencies resulting from the initial remand hearing (see, Matter of Foster, 262 AD2d 899 , lov denied 94 NY2d 760 ).

2001Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 ; Matter of Andresen v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 227 AD2d 617 ).

2001Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130 ; Gdanski v New York City Tr.

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 ).

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 ).

1999The computerized process by which respondent periodically generates a list of officers for testing has been sustained as random (see, Worrel v Brown, 177 AD2d 446 , lv denied 79 NY2d 755 ), and petitioner’s claim to the contrary is pure speculation.

1999The results of the random drug test constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s possession and use of cocaine, and no basis exists for disturbing respondent’s rejection of petitioner’s explanation of unwitting ingestion “as self-serving and implausible” (see, Matter of Green v Sielaff, 198 AD2d 113 ).

1996Respondent’s determination that petitioner knowingly ingested cocaine, necessarily based as it was on the crediting of the testimony of a correction officer with respect to the integ rity of the random drug test administered to petitioner, and the discrediting of petitioner’s disavowal of drug use and claim that her specimen was tainted during the testing procedure, should not be second-guessed by the courts (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443; Matter of Sadler v Bratton, 219 AD2d 517 ).

1992Substantial evidence, namely, a random drug test, supports the determination that petitioner was guilty of wrongfully possessing and ingesting cocaine, there being no reason to disturb the credibility findings of the Hearing Officer rejecting petitioner’s explanation of unwitting ingestion as having "the ring of total implausibility” (see, Matter of Ruggiero v Brown, 184 AD2d 270 ; Matter of Jones v Ward, 166 AD2d 323 ; Matter of Taylor v Raiford, 159 AD2d 309 ), and the penalty of dismissal is not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, supra).

1992Substantial evidence, namely, a random drug test, supports the determination that petitioner was guilty of wrongfully possessing and ingesting cocaine, there being no reason to disturb the credibility findings of the Hearing Officer rejecting petitioner’s explanation of unwitting ingestion as having "the ring of total implausibility” (see, Matter of Ruggiero v Brown, 184 AD2d 270 ; Matter of Jones v Ward, 166 AD2d 323 ; Matter of Taylor v Raiford, 159 AD2d 309 ), and the penalty of dismissal is not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, supra).

1992Substantial evidence, namely, a random drug test, supports the determination that petitioner was guilty of wrongfully possessing and ingesting cocaine, there being no reason to disturb the credibility findings of the Hearing Officer rejecting petitioner’s explanation of unwitting ingestion as having "the ring of total implausibility” (see, Matter of Ruggiero v Brown, 184 AD2d 270 ; Matter of Jones v Ward, 166 AD2d 323 ; Matter of Taylor v Raiford, 159 AD2d 309 ), and the penalty of dismissal is not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, supra).