reliance on the positive test in New York

2000The reporting correction officer responded to petitioner’s questions relating to the timing of the tests and the Hearing Officer was entitled to credit his testimony (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 253 AD2d 940 ).

2000Contrary to petitioner’s contention, a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results and the Hearing Officer was within his province in crediting the testimony of the misbehavior report’s author (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 253 AD2d 940 ).

2004Furthermore, the chain of custody establishing that the specimen was secured and the supporting documentation indicating that the appropriate testing procedures were followed provide the proper foundation for the reliance on the positive test results (see 7 NYCRR 1020.5; Matter of Kae v Selsky, 279 AD2d 682 [2001]).

2000The record reveals that the chain of custody was sufficiently documented and that a proper foundation was established for the reliance on the positive test results (see, Matter of Juzwa v Goord, 264 AD2d 920 ).

2000Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record reveals that the chain of custody was sufficiently documented, and that a proper foundation was established for the reliance on the positive test results (see, Matter of Harris v Goord, 268 AD2d 933, 934 ).

2000Although petitioner claimed that he was served an incomplete request for urinalysis form, the Hearing Officer was within his authority in crediting the testimony of a correction officer to the effect that appropriate procedures were followed and the incomplete copy submitted by petitioner at the hearing must have been altered after it was served (see, Matter of Turner v Newton, 272 AD2d 688 ).

2000Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the chain of custody was sufficiently documented and a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results (see, Matter of Garcia v Goord, 272 AD2d 694 ).

1999Any confusion regarding the dates that various samples were taken and tested before and after the family reunion visit was sufficiently explained during the hearing (see, Matter of Frazier v Goord, 251 AD2d 800 , lv denied 92 NY2d 813 ), as was the clerical error as to one of the dates in the misbehavior report (see, Matter of Rowe v Goord, 257 AD2d 935 ).

1999Any confusion regarding the dates that various samples were taken and tested before and after the family reunion visit was sufficiently explained during the hearing (see, Matter of Frazier v Goord, 251 AD2d 800 , lv denied 92 NY2d 813 ), as was the clerical error as to one of the dates in the misbehavior report (see, Matter of Rowe v Goord, 257 AD2d 935 ).