Petitioner's only argument on this appeal is that two positive results from EMIT drug tests could not serve as substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt absent a confirmatory test of the specimen using a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry drug test. The Court of Appeals has recently held, however, that positive results in two EMIT drug tests constitute substantial evidence of guilt of the use of a controlled substance (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135).
Weiss, P.J., Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.