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
Double Hearsay in Presentence Report Did Not Render the Information Unreliable Re: a SORA Sex Offender Proceeding
WATER VALVE CAP OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WHILE PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE STREET WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
School Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Student Was Unforeseeable—Summary Judgment Properly Denied
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION ENTERED BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT REQUIRING MONTHLY USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS OF OVER $100,000 DURING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM THE LANDLORD’S NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO ZERO BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TENANT WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED WORTHLESS BY THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE LANDLORD’S PERSPECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING OR TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN DID NOT ASCERTAIN THE POSITION OF THE ELDEST CHILD (WHO IS AUTISTIC, NONVERBAL AND HAS A SEIZURE DISORDER) AND DID NOT HAVE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHILD’S CIRCUMSTANCES; THE MOTION TO APPOINT A NEW ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION, GIVEN THE CONFLICTING CONTENTIONS AND THE ELDEST CHILD’S SPECIAL NEEDS, THE MOTION FOR A NEUTRAL OR INDEPENDENT FORENSIC EXAMINATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXCEPTION TO THE FAULTY WORKMANSHIP EXCLUSION IN THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO PRESERVE COVERAGE FOR ENSUING LOSS (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 © 2026 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...