alcohol test in New York

2014The code of conduct defines hazing as “any reckless or intentional conduct in connection with the initiation into or affiliation with any organization which degrades, humiliates or endangers the mental or physical health of any person, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate.” An alcohol violation is defined as “[u]se, possession, or distribution of alcoholic beverages except as expressly permitted by the law and University regulations.” Our review of the record with respect to each of these claims is limited to whether respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evide

2014The code of conduct defines hazing as “any reckless or intentional conduct in connection with the initiation into or affiliation with any organization which degrades, humiliates or endangers the mental or physical health of any person, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate.” An alcohol violation is defined as “[u]se, possession, or distribution of alcoholic beverages except as expressly permitted by the law and University regulations.” Our review of the record with respect to each of these claims is limited to whether respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evide

1994Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the alcohol test results were properly validated, and a proper foundation was laid for their use at the hearing (see, Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981 ).

1985Section 1194 (8) states “The person tested shall be permitted to have a physician of his own choosing administer a chemical test in addition to the one administered at the direction of the police officer.” The defendant relies upon the case of People v Hoats ( 102 Misc 2d 386 [1979]), in support of his motion to suppress the results of the breathalyzer.

1983The officer read the defendant her statutory rights pursuant to section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, regarding the consequences of a refusal to submit to an alcohol test and then read her the rights in accordance with the requirements of Miranda v Arizona ( 384 US 436 ).

1925(Anchor Line v. Aldridge, 259 U. S. 80 .) In view of this decision although made after his default defendant now urges and the courts below have held that it would have been impossible for him on the date for delivery to comply with his contract without contributing to a violation of our statute and that inasmuch as he could *14 not have been required to do this at the time he cannot now be held in damages because he did not do it, even though he did not at that time understand that his shipment would lead to such a violation.