Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Substantial evidence supports respondents' determination finding petitioner guilty of violating an inmate rule that prohibits the use of narcotics. The positive results of an EMIT test, confirmed with the results of a second test, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 138; Matter of Holmes v Coughlin, 182 A.D.2d 1121 [decided herewith]). Petitioner has failed to identify any evidence adduced at the hearing that showed a defect in the chain of custody of his urine specimen (see, Matter of Price v Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 898, 899; Matter of Kincaide v Coughlin, 86 A.D.2d 893, appeal dismissed 57 N.Y.2d 682) or that the specimen was not properly stored. Finally, the penalty imposed was not excessive (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231).