Glover v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glover v. Fischer

113 A.D.3d 976, 978 N.Y.2d 914

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 976 (Glover 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

Glover v. Fischer, 113 A.D.3d 976, 978 N.Y.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

We confirm. Initially we note that, while the petition raised the contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence, that issue has been abandoned by petitioner’s failure to advance it in his brief (see Matter of Huggins v Noeth, 106 AD3d 1351, 1352 [2013]; Matter of Maddox v Fischer, 105 AD3d 1230, 1230 n [2013]). We reject the argument that the investigator lacked proper authorization for the mail [977]*977watch that intercepted petitioner’s letter, inasmuch as the testimony established that written authorization by the superintendent had been secured (see Matter of Cochran v Bezio, 70 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2010]; Matter of Jimenez v Fischer, 56 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]). The remainder of petitioner’s arguments are either unpreserved or without merit.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan 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

We confirm. Initially we note that, while the petition raised the contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence, that issue has been abandoned by petitioner’s failure to advance it in his brief (see Matter of Huggins v Noeth, 106 AD3d 1351, 1352 [2013]; Matter of Maddox v Fischer, 105 AD3d 1230, 1230 n [2013]). We reject the argument that the investigator lacked proper authorization for the mail [977]*977watch that intercepted petitioner’s letter, inasmuch as the testimony established that written authorization by the superintendent had been secured (see Matter of Cochran v Bezio, 70 AD3d 1161, 1162 [2010]; Matter of Jimenez v Fischer, 56 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]). The remainder of petitioner’s arguments are either unpreserved or without merit.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 976, 978 N.Y.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack