Arnold v. Fischer

60 A.D.3d 1177, 875 N.Y.S.2d 318
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 12, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1177 (Arnold v. Fischer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. Fischer, 60 A.D.3d 1177, 875 N.Y.S.2d 318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After an investigation indicated that petitioner slashed another inmate’s face, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assault and violent conduct. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty of both charges. That determination was administratively affirmed, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.

We confirm. Respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the misbehavior report and confidential testimony and information (see Matter of Gallo v Fischer, 50 AD3d 1374, 1374 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed such that petitioner had notice of the charges against him and was able to prepare a defense (see Matter of Nova v Selsky, 54 AD3d 453, 454 [2008]). Petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased is neither substantiated by the record nor is there any indication that the determination of guilt flowed from any purported bias (see Matter of Randolph v Napoli, 56 AD3d 832, 833 [2008]).

[1178]*1178We have examined petitioner’s remaining arguments, including his claim that the Hearing Officer failed to appropriately assess the credibility of the confidential information, and find them to be unavailing.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Adams v. Fischer
116 A.D.3d 1269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Quezada v. Fischer
113 A.D.3d 1004 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Elliott v. Fischer
94 A.D.3d 1326 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wallace v. Prack
93 A.D.3d 1056 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Vega v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
92 A.D.3d 991 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Reid v. Fischer
78 A.D.3d 1400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Taylor v. Fischer
74 A.D.3d 1677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Sanders v. Haggett
72 A.D.3d 1372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Garraway v. Fischer
70 A.D.3d 1153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gomez v. Fischer
70 A.D.3d 1076 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Shea v. Bezio
68 A.D.3d 1330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Reynoso v. Fischer
67 A.D.3d 1166 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Willacy v. Fischer
67 A.D.3d 1099 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.3d 1177, 875 N.Y.S.2d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2009.