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.
6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. Selskygreen1 sentence2003Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, the two positive urinalysis test results and the testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 301 AD2d 1019, 1020 [2003]; Matter of Irons v Goord, 283 AD2d 705 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Devivo v. New York State Department of Correctional Servicesgreen1 sentence2003The misbehavior report, the two positive urinalysis test results, along with substantiating documentation, a drug cross-reactivity manual and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 AD2d 486, 486 [2003]; Matter of Devivo v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 306 AD2d 600, 601 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Coppins v. Ceriogreen1 sentence2003The misbehavior report, the two positive urinalysis test results, along with substantiating documentation, a drug cross-reactivity manual and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 AD2d 486, 486 [2003]; Matter of Devivo v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 306 AD2d 600, 601 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]). | 1 | 1 |
Lahey v. Kellygreen1 sentence1996We find this sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138; Matter of Taylor v Coombe, 228 AD2d 851, 852 ; Matter of Bonilla v Coombe, 221 AD2d 782 , lv denied 87 NY2d 807 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Irons v. Goord
green
1 sentence2003Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report, the two positive urinalysis test results and the testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing provide substantial evidence of his guilt (see Matter of Gonzalez v Selsky, 301 AD2d 1019, 1020 [2003]; Matter of Irons v Goord, 283 AD2d 705 [2001]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rowe v. Goord
green
1 sentence2003Petitioner’s assertion that the medications he was taking at the time of the urinalysis testing resulted in false positive results was countered by testimony of a nurse at the facility’s medical unit, as well as by that of a representative from the manufacturer of the urinalysis testing system who opined that the medications in question were incapable of producing false positive test results for the presence of cannabinoids (see Matter of Woods v Selsky, 291 AD2d 773 [2002]; Matter of Rowe v Goord, 289 AD2d 764 [2001]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Woods v. Selsky
green
1 sentence2003Petitioner’s assertion that the medications he was taking at the time of the urinalysis testing resulted in false positive results was countered by testimony of a nurse at the facility’s medical unit, as well as by that of a representative from the manufacturer of the urinalysis testing system who opined that the medications in question were incapable of producing false positive test results for the presence of cannabinoids (see Matter of Woods v Selsky, 291 AD2d 773 [2002]; Matter of Rowe v Goord, 289 AD2d 764 [2001]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Medina v. Goord
green
1 sentence2000The misbehavior report, the testimony adduced at the hearing and the two positive urinalysis test results indicating the presence of opiates provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Bacchi v Lacy, 267 AD2d 524 ; Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 249 AD2d 655 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mendez v. Selsky
green
1 sentence2000Petitioner’s complaints regarding the chain of custody of his urine sample are rejected (see, Matter of Mendez v Selsky, 255 AD2d 858 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In re the Claim of Donaghy
neutral
1 sentence2000Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the two positive urinalysis test results and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests in accordance with proper procedures constitutes substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Byas v Goord, 272 AD2d 800, 801 , lv denied 95 NY2d 765 ; Matter of Aviles v Selsky, 264 AD2d 883, 884 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bacchi v. Lacy
green
1 sentence2000The misbehavior report, the testimony adduced at the hearing and the two positive urinalysis test results indicating the presence of opiates provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Bacchi v Lacy, 267 AD2d 524 ; Matter of Rodriguez v Coombe, 249 AD2d 655 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Byas v. Goord
green
1 sentence2000Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the two positive urinalysis test results and the testimony of the correction officer who conducted the tests in accordance with proper procedures constitutes substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Byas v Goord, 272 AD2d 800, 801 , lv denied 95 NY2d 765 ; Matter of Aviles v Selsky, 264 AD2d 883, 884 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Snipes
green
1 sentence1998The misbehavior report, the correction officers’ testimony regarding the procedures used for the testing and the two positive urinalysis test results indicating the presence of opiates constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Forbes v Selsky, 252 AD2d 712; Matter of Rouse v Goord, 251 AD2d 805 ; Matter of Kreel v Goord, 249 AD2d 600 , lv denied 92 NY2d 807 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Rouse v. Goord
neutral
1 sentence1998The misbehavior report, the correction officers’ testimony regarding the procedures used for the testing and the two positive urinalysis test results indicating the presence of opiates constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Forbes v Selsky, 252 AD2d 712; Matter of Rouse v Goord, 251 AD2d 805 ; Matter of Kreel v Goord, 249 AD2d 600 , lv denied 92 NY2d 807 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Forbes v. Selsky
neutral
1 sentence1998The misbehavior report, the correction officers’ testimony regarding the procedures used for the testing and the two positive urinalysis test results indicating the presence of opiates constitute substantial evidence supporting the determination of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Forbes v Selsky, 252 AD2d 712; Matter of Rouse v Goord, 251 AD2d 805 ; Matter of Kreel v Goord, 249 AD2d 600 , lv denied 92 NY2d 807 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bonilla v. Coombe
neutral
1 sentence1996We find this sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138; Matter of Taylor v Coombe, 228 AD2d 851, 852 ; Matter of Bonilla v Coombe, 221 AD2d 782 , lv denied 87 NY2d 807 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Taylor v. Coombe
neutral
1 sentence1996We find this sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138; Matter of Taylor v Coombe, 228 AD2d 851, 852 ; Matter of Bonilla v Coombe, 221 AD2d 782 , lv denied 87 NY2d 807 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |