AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of GREGORY MINGO, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, Respondent.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The hearing officer's determination that the petitioner used a controlled substance, thus violating disciplinary rule 113.24 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiv]) was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Smythe v Goord, 41 AD3d 608, 609). During the hearing held on September 30, 2005 and October 16, 17, and 18, 2005, the hearing officer considered, inter alia, a misbehavior report and two urinalysis reports which indicated that the petitioner tested positive for opiates and cannabinoids ( id; see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 138; see also Matter of Thompson v Goord, 37 AD3d 914), as well as the testimony of two corrections officers, one of whom had tested the urine sample provided by the petitioner.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MINGO v. GOORD
(Oct 2, 2007)