Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shorter v. Prackgreen2 sentences2013The misbehavior report and positive test result for marihuana provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2012]). 2013The misbehavior report and positive test result for marihuana provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2012]). | 2 | 4 |
Xao He Lu v. New York State Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2013Petitioner’s denial that he possessed drugs presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Xao He Lu v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 72 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2010]). 2013Petitioner’s denial that he possessed drugs presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Xao He Lu v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 72 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Boggs v. Martuscellogreen2 sentences2013Petitioner’s contention that he was denied certain documentary evidence relating to the testing of the substance found in his locker is unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to raise an objection on that ground either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Torres v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1342 [2013]; Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d at 1178 ; Matter of Boggs v Martuscello, 84 AD3d 1667, 1668 [2011]; Matter of Filpo v Goord, 37 AD3d 891 [2007]). 2013Petitioner’s contention that he was denied certain documentary evidence relating to the testing of the substance found in his locker is unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to raise an objection on that ground either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Torres v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1342 [2013]; Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d at 1178 ; Matter of Boggs v Martuscello, 84 AD3d 1667, 1668 [2011]; Matter of Filpo v Goord, 37 AD3d 891 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Ayrhart v. Fischergreen2 sentences2013Petitioner’s remaining contentions — including that he was denied the right to call witnesses, denied documentary evidence and that Department of Corrections and Community Supervision procedures were not properly followed — were not raised at the hearing and, therefore, are unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Ayrhart v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2012]; Matter of Hamilton v Goord, 32 AD3d 642, 643 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). 2013Petitioner’s remaining contentions — including that he was denied the right to call witnesses, denied documentary evidence and that Department of Corrections and Community Supervision procedures were not properly followed — were not raised at the hearing and, therefore, are unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Ayrhart v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2012]; Matter of Hamilton v Goord, 32 AD3d 642, 643 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). | 2 | 2 |
Faraldo v. Beziogreen2 sentences2013The misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). 2013The misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Ungergreen2 sentences2013The misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). 2013The misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Unger, 100 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2012]; Matter of Faraldo v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Hamilton v. Goordgreen2 sentences2013Petitioner’s remaining contentions — including that he was denied the right to call witnesses, denied documentary evidence and that Department of Corrections and Community Supervision procedures were not properly followed — were not raised at the hearing and, therefore, are unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Ayrhart v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2012]; Matter of Hamilton v Goord, 32 AD3d 642, 643 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). 2013Petitioner’s remaining contentions — including that he was denied the right to call witnesses, denied documentary evidence and that Department of Corrections and Community Supervision procedures were not properly followed — were not raised at the hearing and, therefore, are unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Ayrhart v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2012]; Matter of Hamilton v Goord, 32 AD3d 642, 643 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Dubraygreen1 sentence2010Petitioner’s contention that the test results were erroneously introduced into evidence because the proper documentation had not been supplied is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as he failed to object to their introduction either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Smith v Dubray, 58 AD3d 968, 969 [2009]; Matter of Ross v Selsky, 49 AD3d 1065, 1065 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Selskygreen1 sentence2010Petitioner’s contention that the test results were erroneously introduced into evidence because the proper documentation had not been supplied is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as he failed to object to their introduction either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Smith v Dubray, 58 AD3d 968, 969 [2009]; Matter of Ross v Selsky, 49 AD3d 1065, 1065 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Weingartengreen2 sentences1999However, the misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Hernandez v McGinnis, 251 AD2d 769 ; Matter of Lopez v Goord, 242 AD2d 816 ). 1999We find no error in the Hearing Officer’s reliance on the testimony of the correctional facility nurse which refuted evidence submitted by petitioner that the prescription drug he was taking caused a false positive (see, Matter of Lopez v Goord, supra, at 816-817). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Torres v. Fischer
green
2 sentences2013Petitioner’s contention that he was denied certain documentary evidence relating to the testing of the substance found in his locker is unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to raise an objection on that ground either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Torres v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1342 [2013]; Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d at 1178 ; Matter of Boggs v Martuscello, 84 AD3d 1667, 1668 [2011]; Matter of Filpo v Goord, 37 AD3d 891 [2007]). 2013Petitioner’s contention that he was denied certain documentary evidence relating to the testing of the substance found in his locker is unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to raise an objection on that ground either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Torres v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1342 [2013]; Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d at 1178 ; Matter of Boggs v Martuscello, 84 AD3d 1667, 1668 [2011]; Matter of Filpo v Goord, 37 AD3d 891 [2007]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Filpo v. Goord
green
2 sentences2013Petitioner’s contention that he was denied certain documentary evidence relating to the testing of the substance found in his locker is unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to raise an objection on that ground either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Torres v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1342 [2013]; Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d at 1178 ; Matter of Boggs v Martuscello, 84 AD3d 1667, 1668 [2011]; Matter of Filpo v Goord, 37 AD3d 891 [2007]). 2013Petitioner’s contention that he was denied certain documentary evidence relating to the testing of the substance found in his locker is unpreserved for our review in light of his failure to raise an objection on that ground either at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Torres v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1342 [2013]; Matter of Shorter v Prack, 100 AD3d at 1178 ; Matter of Boggs v Martuscello, 84 AD3d 1667, 1668 [2011]; Matter of Filpo v Goord, 37 AD3d 891 [2007]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Karapetian v. Fischer
neutral
1 sentence2010To the extent that petitioner challenges the determination on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence, we find the misbehavior report and positive test results to be sufficient to establish his guilt (see Matter of Stallone v Fischer, 65 AD3d 1410 [2009]; Matter of Karapetian v Fischer, 65 AD3d 772 [2009]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Stallone v. Fischer
green
1 sentence2010To the extent that petitioner challenges the determination on the ground that it was not supported by substantial evidence, we find the misbehavior report and positive test results to be sufficient to establish his guilt (see Matter of Stallone v Fischer, 65 AD3d 1410 [2009]; Matter of Karapetian v Fischer, 65 AD3d 772 [2009]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Frazier v. Goord
green
1 sentence2003Contrary to petitioner’s contention, a review of the request for urinalysis form establishes that the chain of custody was sufficiently documented despite any minor discrepancies (see Matter of Harris v Goord, 268 AD2d 933 [2000]; Matter of Frazier v Goord, 251 AD2d 800 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 813 [1998]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Morales v. Goord
neutral
1 sentence2003The misbehavior report and positive test results provide substantial evidence in support of the determination of guilt (see Matter of Giraldi v Selsky, 253 AD2d 933 [1998]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Harris v. Goord
green
1 sentence2003Contrary to petitioner’s contention, a review of the request for urinalysis form establishes that the chain of custody was sufficiently documented despite any minor discrepancies (see Matter of Harris v Goord, 268 AD2d 933 [2000]; Matter of Frazier v Goord, 251 AD2d 800 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 813 [1998]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In re the Claim of Donaghy
neutral
1 sentence2000Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Aviles v Selsky, 264 AD2d 883 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Abdul-Matiyn v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
green
1 sentence1999However, the misbehavior report and positive test results, together with the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Hernandez v McGinnis, 251 AD2d 769 ; Matter of Lopez v Goord, 242 AD2d 816 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Sanatana v. Goord
neutral
1 sentence1998Therefore, taking into account the misbehavior report and positive test results, along with the correction officers’ testimony, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 143 ; Matter of Sanatana v Goord, 239 AD2d 695, 696 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lahey v. Kelly
green
1 sentence1998Therefore, taking into account the misbehavior report and positive test results, along with the correction officers’ testimony, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 143 ; Matter of Sanatana v Goord, 239 AD2d 695, 696 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |