Bridgeforth v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bridgeforth v. Fischer

69 A.D.3d 1068, 891 N.Y.2d 671

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1068 (Bridgeforth 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

Bridgeforth v. Fischer, 69 A.D.3d 1068, 891 N.Y.2d 671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner, an inmate, informed a correction officer that his cellmate had just threatened him with a razor tied to a rope. The correction officer then frisked petitioner’s cellmate, but found no razor on him, and a search of the cell revealed that the cellmate’s razor, with the blades intact, was in his shower bag. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with lying and refusing a double bunk assignment. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. Upon administrative appeal, respondent modified the determination by dismissing the refusing a double bunk assignment charge and reduced the penalty imposed, but otherwise affirmed the determination. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of its author, provide substantial evidence supporting [1069]*1069the determination of guilt (see Matter of Sanders v Goord, 47 AD3d 987, 988 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there is no support in the record for his allegations that the Hearing Officer was biased or had predetermined his guilt, nor is there any indication that the determination flowed from such alleged bias (see Matter of Abdullah v Goord, 36 AD3d 978, 979 [2007]). Moreover, the Hearing Officer properly considered petitioner’s mental health status by taking the confidential testimony of a representative from the mental health unit (see Matter of Triplett v Fischer, 54 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2008]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the Hearing Officer was not appropriately designated to conduct the hearing, are unpreserved for our review.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, 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

Petitioner, an inmate, informed a correction officer that his cellmate had just threatened him with a razor tied to a rope. The correction officer then frisked petitioner’s cellmate, but found no razor on him, and a search of the cell revealed that the cellmate’s razor, with the blades intact, was in his shower bag. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with lying and refusing a double bunk assignment. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of both charges. Upon administrative appeal, respondent modified the determination by dismissing the refusing a double bunk assignment charge and reduced the penalty imposed, but otherwise affirmed the determination. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of its author, provide substantial evidence supporting [1069]*1069the determination of guilt (see Matter of Sanders v Goord, 47 AD3d 987, 988 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there is no support in the record for his allegations that the Hearing Officer was biased or had predetermined his guilt, nor is there any indication that the determination flowed from such alleged bias (see Matter of Abdullah v Goord, 36 AD3d 978, 979 [2007]). Moreover, the Hearing Officer properly considered petitioner’s mental health status by taking the confidential testimony of a representative from the mental health unit (see Matter of Triplett v Fischer, 54 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2008]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the Hearing Officer was not appropriately designated to conduct the hearing, are unpreserved for our review.

Cardona, PJ., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 1068, 891 N.Y.2d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridgeforth-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack