Chandler v. Fischer

102 A.D.3d 1045, 957 N.Y.S.2d 922
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 24, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 102 A.D.3d 1045 (Chandler 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
Chandler v. Fischer, 102 A.D.3d 1045, 957 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

As the result of an authorized mail watch, correction officials discovered an outgoing letter written by petitioner that contained numerous gang-related references and code terms. Accordingly, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating prison disciplinary rules relating to gang activity and organizing a prohibited demonstration. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge relating to gang activity and was found not guilty of the demonstration charge. The disposition was upheld upon administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, copy of the letter, mail watch authorization form and hearing testimony—including petitioner’s admission that he authored the letter—provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Williams v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2012]; Matter of Santana v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2010]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record reflects that the letter was intercepted pursuant to a properly authorized mail watch (see 7 NYCRR 720.3 [e] [1]; Matter of Williams v Fischer, 93 AD3d at 1052). Finally, we are not convinced that petitioner was denied any relevant witnesses, and his claim that he was denied access to the mail watch authorization is belied by the record.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, 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

Gonzalez v. Annucci
149 A.D.3d 1455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Rizzuto v. Eastman
134 A.D.3d 1308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A.D.3d 1045, 957 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2013.