Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
On June 16, 2014, while the petitioner was on duty as a mechanical equipment operator for the Town of Patterson, he was randomly selected to have his urine tested for the presence of drugs. The petitioner's urine tested positive for cocaine, and he was issued an amended notice of discipline alleging misconduct and incompetency as a result of the positive drug test. Pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, a hearing was held at which the petitioner was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer recommended that the petitioner be found guilty of the charges contained in the amended notice of discipline and that his employment be terminated. The Highway Superintendent of the Town adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer and terminated the petitioner's employment.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination adopting the findings of the hearing officer and terminating his employment. In an order dated January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court transferred
The petitioner has the burden of showing a flaw in the chain of custody (see Matter of Fergerson v City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 41 [2001]; Matter of Rivera v Selsky, 266 A.D.2d 295 [1999]; Matter of Allen v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 240 A.D.2d 229, 230 [1997]). The record contains evidence demonstrating the identity of the urine sample and its contents based on a documentary chain of custody, and evidence that the seal on the sample container was intact when it was received for testing (see People v Newman, 129 A.D.2d 742 [1987]). In response, the petitioner has offered nothing more than mere speculation to support his assertions that the chain of custody was flawed. Thus, he has failed to meet his burden of proving that the chain of custody was flawed (see Matter of Caviano v Stinson, 209 A.D.2d 807 [1994]; Matter of Curry v Coughlin, 175 A.D.2d 970 [1991]).
Accordingly, we confirm the Town's determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits.
