Britto v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Britto v. Fischer

118 A.D.3d 1463, 987 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedJune 20, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 1463 (Britto 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

Britto v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1463, 987 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered January 28, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, that he violated inmate rules 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [weapon possession]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i] [smuggling]). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claim that he was denied his request for a witness, and this Court has no discretionary authority to reach that claim (see Matter of Stewart v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]).

Present—Centra, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered January 28, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, that he violated inmate rules 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [weapon possession]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i] [smuggling]). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claim that he was denied his request for a witness, and this Court has no discretionary authority to reach that claim (see Matter of Stewart v Fischer, 109 AD3d 1122, 1123 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 858 [2013]).

Present—Centra, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 1463, 987 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britto-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack