TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Larocco v. Coughlin

In the Matter of Thomas Larocco v. Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services

Larocco v. Coughlin, 181 A.D.2d 957 (1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 26, 1992
Judges
Casey
Citations
181 A.D.2d 957581 N.Y.S.2d 7311992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4037

Opinion of the Court — Casey

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, was subjected to routine urinalysis testing following his participation in the family reunion program (see, 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [a] [2] [ii]). Based upon the results of this testing, petitioner was charged with violating the disciplinary rule which prohibits the unauthorized use of any controlled substance. Following a hearing petitioner was found guilty of the charge, and he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination after it was administratively affirmed.

Petitioner’s argument directed at the reliability of the EMIT test procedure which yielded positive results for cocaine in his urine is meritless (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135 ). The documentary evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to substantiate the required chain of custody (see, Matter of Berrios v Kuhlmann, 143 AD2d 475, 477 ), and the evidence in the record refutes petitioner’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of an employee assistant. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be lacking in merit. The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, supra, at 140) and it must, therefore, be confirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1998: 119982026peak 1998 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Whitfield v. Johnson255 A.D.2d 949 (1998)

Most recent

  1. Whitfield v. Johnson255 A.D.2d 949 (1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Lahey v. Kelly, 518 N.E.2d 924 (N.Y. 1987) 298
Berrios v. Kuhlmann, 143 A.D.2d 475 (1988) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list