You are here: / / DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL...

DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED.

The Second Department determined the finding petitioner had used marijuana was not supported by the evidence. The hearing officer stipulated to the petitioner’s claim that the medication he was taking produced false positive results for marijuana. The corrections officer’s testimony that he smelled marijuana near where the petitioner was standing was not enough. Petitioner was standing outside with others at the time:

​

Since the hearing officer stipulated that the petitioner’s medication produces false positives for cannabinoids in urinalysis tests, and since no evidence was submitted to contradict the petitioner’s evidence, the positive urinalysis tests results were of little probative value in establishing that the petitioner used cannabinoids. While the correction officer’s observations were sufficient to raise suspicion that the petitioner had violated the prison disciplinary rule, they were not adequate to reasonably support the conclusion that the petitioner had, in fact, violated the rule, especially since the correction officer’s detection of the marijuana odor was made outdoors where there were other inmates in the immediate vicinity of the petitioner. Accordingly, we find that the hearing officer’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Jackson v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 03178, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED)/MARIJUANA (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED)

You might also like
NYC FIRE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND WERE NOT INTER-AGENCY MATERIALS; THEREFORE THE FOIL REQUESTS FOR THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED THE TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PRIVITY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT ARCHITECT; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Burdens Re: Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case—Notice and Act of God​
ONLY THE HUSBAND TOOK OUT A MORTGAGE AND DEFENDANTS DENIED THE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE WIFE’S INTEREST WAS SUBJECT TO AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE COURT NOTED THAT “NEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED” IN AN ANSWER TO A COMPLAINT IS DEEMED AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RETAILER ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO A BANK STEMMING FROM THE HACKING OF MASTERCARD CREDIT CARD INFORMATION FROM THE RETAILER’S ACCOUNTS UNDER EQUITABLE SUBROGATION, MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORIES, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Civil Versus Criminal Contempt Explained in Context of Imposition of Fines or Monetary Penalties
ALTHOUGH THE BACKHOE WHICH COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN USED FOR ROADWORK THAT DAY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE BACKHOE WAS BEING USED TO TRANSPORT GRAVEL TO THE WORK SITE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE BACKHOE WAS NOT “ACTIVELY ENGAGED” IN ROADWORK AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD FOR LIABILITY IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY... ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY...