Infante v. Selsky
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Ramos v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Yahya Muhammad Abdullah Muntaqim v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Baez v. Venettozzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Capocetta v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Medina v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Telesco v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Moreno v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Levy v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Petitioner, an inmate, was ordered by a correction officer to produce a urine sample as part of a random drug screening. When petitioner failed to provide a specimen within the required three-hour period (see 7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d] [4]), he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order and failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of petitioner’s examining physician and the documentary evidence submitted at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Wigfall v Goord, 16 AD 3d 791, 791 [2005]; Matter of Lopez v Goord, 14 AD3d 771, 771 [2005]; Matter of Becker v Goord, 13 AD3d 947, 948 [2004]). Although petitioner asserts that he was unable to provide the urine sample because of a prior groin injury which was compounded by shy bladder syndrome, his examining physician testified that petitioner’s condition would not have prevented his compliance within the allotted three-hour time period (see Matter of Zhong v Selsky, 307 AD2d 498, 499 [2003]). Petitioner’s alleged inability to produce the urine sample raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Cunningham v Goord, 274 AD2d 814, 814 [2000]) and, as the resulting determination was supported by substantial evidence, we decline to disturb it.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.