Legal Opinion

Perez v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 19, 1996PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We confirm the determination of respondent that petitioner violated inmate rule 113.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]), which prohibits the use of a controlled substance. The positive result of an EMIT test, when confirmed, as here, by the result of a second EMIT test, constitutes substantial evidence to support that determination (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138; Matter of McKins v Coughlin, 142 AD2d 987, lv denied 74 NY2d 603).

We reject the argument of petitioner that the Hearing Officer was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Vega v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Lahey v. KellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Perez v. WilmotNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. McKins v. CoughlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Edmonson v. CoombeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  2. McPhee v. CoombeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API