You are here: / / INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE TESTING USED TO DETERMINE THE SUBSTANCES WERE...
,

INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE TESTING USED TO DETERMINE THE SUBSTANCES WERE CONTRABAND DRUGS, POSSESSION OF DRUGS CHARGE ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the possession of drugs charge because the proof of the testing procedures used on the substances alleged to be drugs was insufficient:

When positive results of a test of suspected contraband drugs are used as evidence at a disciplinary hearing, 7 NYCRR 1010.5 (d) directs that certain documents, including “a statement of the scientific princip[les] and validity of the testing materials and procedures used,” be included in the record. This required document does not appear in the record, nor was it provided to petitioner despite his specific request and objections. Further, testimony from the testing officer offered no evidence of the procedures used. In view of the foregoing, that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing drugs is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of McFarlane v Annucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 07123, Third Dept 10-3-19

 

You might also like
Assets Allegedly Wrongly Appropriated by Fiduciary Deemed “Asset-Transfers” for Purpose of Qualifying for Medicaid 
Absolute Privilege Attaches to Statement Made by a Nonparticipant in the Litigation Which Is Republished by an Attorney In the Course of the Litigation
Five-Month Delay in Notifying Carrier Not Justified by Insured’s Belief Lawsuit Was Fraudulent
Two-Part Inquiry for Determining Whether a Dispute is Arbitrable Under a Collective Bargaining Agreement Clearly Explained and Applied
OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT).
INJURY DURING HURRICANE SANDY RESCUE OPERATIONS DID NOT RESULT FROM AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW.
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED.
PROPERTY OWNERS’ FRAUD AND OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS ACTION BY THE TOWN ALLEGING ZONING VIOLATIONS.

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

RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN THE... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW IN MAKING A LEFT...