nark ii test in New York

2019The misbehavior report, positive NARK II test results and related documentation ( see generally 7 NYCRR 1010.8 [d]), together with the unusual incident report and hearing testimony from the correction officer who conducted the frisk and the officer who tested the substance, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Young v Rodriguez , 165 AD3d 1338 , 1338 [2018]; Matter of Horton v Annucci , 163 AD3d 1385 , 1385 [2018]; Matter of Collins v Annucci , 146 AD3d 1261, 1261 [2017]).

2018The misbehavior report, positive NARK II test results and related documentation ( see generally 7 NYCRR 1010.8 [d]), together with the hearing testimony and photographic evidence, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Ortiz v Venettozzi , 158 AD3d 865 , 865 [2018]; Matter of Collins v Annucci , 146 AD3d 1261, 1261 [2017]; Matter of Bartello v Annucci , 142 AD3d 1194, 1194 [2016]).

2020Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no requirement that the positive results of the NARK II test, which the correction officer testified were conducted in accordance with manufacturer's procedures, be confirmed by additional testing ( see Matter of Fields v Prack , 120 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2014]; Matter of Grochulski v Selsky , 305 AD2d 823, 823 [2003]; Matter of Darnell v Kuhlmann , 145 AD2d 852, 853 [1988]).

2020Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no requirement that the positive results of the NARK II test, which the correction officer testified were conducted in accordance with manufacturer's procedures, be confirmed by additional testing ( see Matter of Fields v Prack , 120 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2014]; Matter of Grochulski v Selsky , 305 AD2d 823, 823 [2003]; Matter of Darnell v Kuhlmann , 145 AD2d 852, 853 [1988]).

2020To the extent that petitioner challenges the correction officer's statement that she inspected petitioner's property and confiscated the tobacco bags and vials of oil as part of an on-going investigation, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Lunney v Goord , 24 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]).

2020To the extent that petitioner challenges the correction officer's statement that she inspected petitioner's property and confiscated the tobacco bags and vials of oil as part of an on-going investigation, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Lunney v Goord , 24 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]).

2020Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no requirement that the positive results of the NARK II test, which the correction officer testified were conducted in accordance with manufacturer's procedures, be confirmed by additional testing ( see Matter of Fields v Prack , 120 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2014]; Matter of Grochulski v Selsky , 305 AD2d 823, 823 [2003]; Matter of Darnell v Kuhlmann , 145 AD2d 852, 853 [1988]).

2020Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no requirement that the positive results of the NARK II test, which the correction officer testified were conducted in accordance with manufacturer's procedures, be confirmed by additional testing ( see Matter of Fields v Prack , 120 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2014]; Matter of Grochulski v Selsky , 305 AD2d 823, 823 [2003]; Matter of Darnell v Kuhlmann , 145 AD2d 852, 853 [1988]).

2020Petitioner's protestations of innocence, and the testimony of his inmate witness who claimed to have been the owner of the drugs, raised credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Williams v Annucci , 120 AD3d 1479, 1480 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 911 [2014]).

2020Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no requirement that the positive results of the NARK II test, which the correction officer testified were conducted in accordance with manufacturer's procedures, be confirmed by additional testing ( see Matter of Fields v Prack , 120 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2014]; Matter of Grochulski v Selsky , 305 AD2d 823, 823 [2003]; Matter of Darnell v Kuhlmann , 145 AD2d 852, 853 [1988]).

2020Furthermore, contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no requirement that the positive results of the NARK II test, which the correction officer testified were conducted in accordance with manufacturer's procedures, be confirmed by additional testing ( see Matter of Fields v Prack , 120 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2014]; Matter of Grochulski v Selsky , 305 AD2d 823, 823 [2003]; Matter of Darnell v Kuhlmann , 145 AD2d 852, 853 [1988]).

2019Although petitioner denied that the green leafy substance was synthetic marihuana, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Guzman v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2017]; Matter of Jones v Venettozzi , 153 AD3d 1073, 1073 [2017]).

2019Contrary to petitioner's contention, the information contained on the request for test of suspected contraband drugs form, which included the precise time when the substance was tested, and the testimony of the correction officer who collected and tested the sample established a proper chain of custody of the sample ( see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [a], [b]; Matter of Morales v Venettozzi , 163 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [2018]; Matter of Rodriguez v Venettozzi , 156 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2017]).

2019The detailed misbehavior report, supporting documentation, positive NARK II test results and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Karacostantakis v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2017]; Matter of Wendell v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1430, 1430-1431 [2017]).

2019Although petitioner denied that the green leafy substance was synthetic marihuana, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see Matter of Guzman v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2017]; Matter of Jones v Venettozzi , 153 AD3d 1073, 1073 [2017]).

2019"Moreover, the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence support the smuggling charge" ( Matter of Ortiz v Venettozzi , 158 AD3d at 865 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Sanchez v Fischer , 106 AD3d 1361, 1361 [2013]).

2019Moreover, contrary to petitioner's claim, the regulations governing use of the NARK II test results, like those governing the use of NIK test results, do not require that the substance be tested a second time after an initial positive test result has been obtained ( see 7 NYCRR 1010.8 [c], [d]; Matter of Staine v Fischer , 111 AD3d 999, 1000 [2013]; Matter of Fero v Prack , 108 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2013]).

2019Moreover, contrary to petitioner's claim, the regulations governing use of the NARK II test results, like those governing the use of NIK test results, do not require that the substance be tested a second time after an initial positive test result has been obtained ( see 7 NYCRR 1010.8 [c], [d]; Matter of Staine v Fischer , 111 AD3d 999, 1000 [2013]; Matter of Fero v Prack , 108 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2013]).

2019Moreover, contrary to petitioner's claim, the regulations governing use of the NARK II test results, like those governing the use of NIK test results, do not require that the substance be tested a second time after an initial positive test result has been obtained ( see 7 NYCRR 1010.8 [c], [d]; Matter of Staine v Fischer , 111 AD3d 999, 1000 [2013]; Matter of Fero v Prack , 108 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2013]).

2019Moreover, contrary to petitioner's claim, the regulations governing use of the NARK II test results, like those governing the use of NIK test results, do not require that the substance be tested a second time after an initial positive test result has been obtained ( see 7 NYCRR 1010.8 [c], [d]; Matter of Staine v Fischer , 111 AD3d 999, 1000 [2013]; Matter of Fero v Prack , 108 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2013]).

2019The detailed misbehavior report, supporting documentation, positive NARK II test results and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Karacostantakis v Annucci , 156 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2017]; Matter of Wendell v Annucci , 149 AD3d 1430, 1430-1431 [2017]).

2018The misbehavior report, positive NARK II test results and related documentation ( see generally 7 NYCRR 1010.8 [d]), together with the hearing testimony and photographic evidence, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Ortiz v Venettozzi , 158 AD3d 865 , 865 [2018]; Matter of Collins v Annucci , 146 AD3d 1261, 1261 [2017]; Matter of Bartello v Annucci , 142 AD3d 1194, 1194 [2016]).