positive urinalysis test in New York

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2015The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests and authored the report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rosario v Prack, 119 AD3d 1302, 1302 [2014]; Matter of Muniz v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1044, 1044 [2013]).

2015The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests and authored the report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rosario v Prack, 119 AD3d 1302, 1302 [2014]; Matter of Muniz v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1044, 1044 [2013]).

2008The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and accompanying documentation, along with testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Hoover v Goord, 38 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 816 [2007]; Matter of Silverstein v Selsky, 32 AD3d 1100, 1100 [2006]).

2008To the extent that the petition can be construed as alleging that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence, we disagree and find that the misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, are sufficient to meet that standard (see Matter of Marino v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 41 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2007], appeal dismissed and lv denied 9 NY3d 940 [2007]; Matter of Hoover v Goord, 38 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2007]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 784 [2012]; Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]).

2013The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony presented at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Donahue v Fischer, 98 AD3d 784, 784 [2012]; Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]).

2012The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results, related documentation and hearing testimony, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Geraci v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2009]; Matter of Smith v Dubray, 58 AD3d 968, 968 [2009]).

2010The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony of the correction officer who obtained the urine sample from the hospital nurse and tested it, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Geraci v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2009]; Matter of Smith v Dubray, 58 AD3d 968, 968 [2009]).

2008Preliminarily, to the extent that petitioner raises a substantial evidence issue, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and the testimony adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Molina v Selsky, 21 AD3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2005]; Matter of Pollard v Goord, 18 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2005]).

2007The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and. related documentation as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Molina v Selsky, 21 AD3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2005]; Matter of Paige v Goord, 19 AD3d 908, 908 [2005]).

2007The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and. related documentation as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Molina v Selsky, 21 AD3d 1238, 1238-1239 [2005]; Matter of Paige v Goord, 19 AD3d 908, 908 [2005]).

2006The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and supporting documentation, along with the testimony of the officers who collected and tested petitioner’s urine sample, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Paige v Goord, 19 AD3d 908, 908 [2005]; Matter of Sanchez v Selsky, 8 AD3d 846, 846 [2004]).

2014The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the test, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2013]; Matter of Muniz v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1044, 1044 [2013]).

2014The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the test, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Mullamphy v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2013]; Matter of Muniz v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1044, 1044 [2013]).

2013Insofar as the misbehavior report charged petitioner with using a controlled substance based upon a positive urinalysis test, the Hearing Officer properly concluded that the requested testimony would be irrelevant to the charge of which petitioner was found guilty (see Matter of Townes v Goord, 14 AD3d 754, 755 [2005]; Matter of Alexander v Goord, 3 AD3d 638, 638 [2004]).

2013Insofar as the misbehavior report charged petitioner with using a controlled substance based upon a positive urinalysis test, the Hearing Officer properly concluded that the requested testimony would be irrelevant to the charge of which petitioner was found guilty (see Matter of Townes v Goord, 14 AD3d 754, 755 [2005]; Matter of Alexander v Goord, 3 AD3d 638, 638 [2004]).

2012The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results, related documentation and hearing testimony, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Geraci v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2009]; Matter of Smith v Dubray, 58 AD3d 968, 968 [2009]).

2010The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony of the correction officer who obtained the urine sample from the hospital nurse and tested it, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Geraci v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2009]; Matter of Smith v Dubray, 58 AD3d 968, 968 [2009]).

2012Petitioner’s defense that the positive test results were attributable either to his ingestion of prescription medication or crackers containing poppy seeds presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Shabazz v Selsky, 12 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]).

2012Petitioner’s defense that the positive test results were attributable either to his ingestion of prescription medication or crackers containing poppy seeds presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Shabazz v Selsky, 12 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]).

2010The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the hearing testimony, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Allred v Goord, 48 AD3d 847, 848 [2008]; Matter of Marino v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 41 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2007], appeal dismissed and lv denied 9 NY3d 940 [2007]).

2008To the extent that the petition can be construed as alleging that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence, we disagree and find that the misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, are sufficient to meet that standard (see Matter of Marino v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 41 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2007], appeal dismissed and lv denied 9 NY3d 940 [2007]; Matter of Hoover v Goord, 38 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2007]).

2005The misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results, supporting documentation and testimony of the correction officers who administered the tests, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of McCorkle v Bennett, 8 AD3d 918, 919 [2004]; Matter of Sanchez v Selsky, 8 AD3d 846, 846 [2004).

2005In our view, the misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the training officer and the correction officer who performed the tests, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Graziano v Selsky, 9 AD3d 752, 752 [2004]; Matter of McCorkle v Bennett, 8 AD3d 918, 919 [2004]).

2010Any discrepancies on the urinalysis testing worksheet were adequately explained by the correction officer who tested the sample and verified the accuracy of the test results (see Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 AD2d 1026, 1026-1027 [2003]; Matter of Uttinger v Goord, 284 AD2d 826 [2001]).

2010Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the correction officer who tested petitioner’s urine sample adequately explained that the misinformation appearing on the test documentation was the result of clerical errors which did not undermine the validity of the positive test results (see Matter of Harrison v Fischer, 56 AD3d 917 , 917 [2008] ; Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 AD2d 1026 [2003]).

2018The misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who twice tested petitioner's urine sample and the positive urinalysis test results constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1226, 1226 [2017]; Matter of Shepherd v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1495 , 1496 [2017], appeal dismissed and lv denied 30 NY3d 1093 [2018]; Matter of Smith v Venettozzi , 145 AD3d 1277, 1277 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 910 [2017]).

2018The misbehavior report and the testimony of its author, together with the positive urinalysis test results and the related documentation, constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1226, 1226 [2017], appeal dismissed and lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Feb. 13, 2018]; Matter of Shepherd v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2017]).

2018Further, the record establishes that petitioner was provided with all of the mandated urinalysis testing documentation ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [iv]; 1020.5 [a]) and, therefore, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the positive test results ( see Matter of Morales v Venettozzi , 163 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [2018]; Matter of Wade v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]).

2018Further, the record establishes that petitioner was provided with all of the mandated urinalysis testing documentation ( see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [f] [1] [iv]; 1020.5 [a]) and, therefore, a proper foundation was laid for the admission of the positive test results ( see Matter of Morales v Venettozzi , 163 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [2018]; Matter of Wade v Annucci , 144 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]).

2015The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests and authored the report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rosario v Prack, 119 AD3d 1302, 1302 [2014]; Matter of Muniz v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1044, 1044 [2013]).

2015The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests and authored the report, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rosario v Prack, 119 AD3d 1302, 1302 [2014]; Matter of Muniz v Fischer, 111 AD3d 1044, 1044 [2013]).

2015Petitioner’s denial that he used drugs presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, 120 AD3d 855, 855 [2014]).

2015Petitioner’s denial that he used drugs presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, 120 AD3d 855, 855 [2014]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s contention, he did not request any other witnesses when given the opportunity (see Matter of Green v Fischer, 77 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 710 [2011], cert denied 132 S Ct 1047 [2012]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s contention, he did not request any other witnesses when given the opportunity (see Matter of Green v Fischer, 77 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 710 [2011], cert denied 132 S Ct 1047 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2013The detailed misbehavior report, together with the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Hart v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1357, 1357 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]).

2013Insofar as the misbehavior report charged petitioner with using a controlled substance based upon a positive urinalysis test, the Hearing Officer properly concluded that the requested testimony would be irrelevant to the charge of which petitioner was found guilty (see Matter of Townes v Goord, 14 AD3d 754, 755 [2005]; Matter of Alexander v Goord, 3 AD3d 638, 638 [2004]).

2013Insofar as the misbehavior report charged petitioner with using a controlled substance based upon a positive urinalysis test, the Hearing Officer properly concluded that the requested testimony would be irrelevant to the charge of which petitioner was found guilty (see Matter of Townes v Goord, 14 AD3d 754, 755 [2005]; Matter of Alexander v Goord, 3 AD3d 638, 638 [2004]).

2012Petitioner’s defense that the positive test results were attributable either to his ingestion of prescription medication or crackers containing poppy seeds presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Shabazz v Selsky, 12 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]).

2012Petitioner’s defense that the positive test results were attributable either to his ingestion of prescription medication or crackers containing poppy seeds presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Moss v Prack, 87 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2011]; Matter of Shabazz v Selsky, 12 AD3d 795, 796 [2004]).

2012The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Neil v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]).

2012The misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, as well as the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Curry v Fischer, 93 AD3d 984, 984 [2012]; Matter of Neil v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]).

2018The misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who twice tested petitioner's urine sample and the positive urinalysis test results constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1226, 1226 [2017]; Matter of Shepherd v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1495 , 1496 [2017], appeal dismissed and lv denied 30 NY3d 1093 [2018]; Matter of Smith v Venettozzi , 145 AD3d 1277, 1277 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 910 [2017]).

2018The misbehavior report and the testimony of its author, together with the positive urinalysis test results and the related documentation, constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt ( see Matter of Blunt v Annucci , 155 AD3d 1226, 1226 [2017], appeal dismissed and lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Feb. 13, 2018]; Matter of Shepherd v Annucci , 153 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2017]).