Heyward v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heyward v. Fischer

107 A.D.3d 1255, 967 N.Y.S.2d 513

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

DecidedJune 20, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 107 A.D.3d 1255 (Heyward 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

Heyward v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1255, 967 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, has written and published a number of books. One of his books was introduced into the prison library system and it contained petitioner’s email address as well as instructions for obtaining other books by petitioner through mail order. In addition, petitioner was found to be in possession of precompleted invoices and correspondence from a publishing company, as well as money order receipts showing payments of $4,800 made to him. Correction officials conducted an investigation into petitioner’s suspected operation of a publishing and book sales company with his wife, which was contrary to prison rules. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with violating facility correspondence procedures. Petitioner was found guilty of this charge at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who authored it, together with the considerable documentary evidence, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Kairis v Fischer, 54 AD3d 462, 463 [2008]; Matter of Constantino v Goord, 33 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2006]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb respondent’s determination.

[1256]*1256Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain and McCarthy, 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

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, has written and published a number of books. One of his books was introduced into the prison library system and it contained petitioner’s email address as well as instructions for obtaining other books by petitioner through mail order. In addition, petitioner was found to be in possession of precompleted invoices and correspondence from a publishing company, as well as money order receipts showing payments of $4,800 made to him. Correction officials conducted an investigation into petitioner’s suspected operation of a publishing and book sales company with his wife, which was contrary to prison rules. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with violating facility correspondence procedures. Petitioner was found guilty of this charge at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who authored it, together with the considerable documentary evidence, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Kairis v Fischer, 54 AD3d 462, 463 [2008]; Matter of Constantino v Goord, 33 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2006]). Petitioner’s contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Wright v Goord, 19 AD3d 855, 855 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 711 [2005]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb respondent’s determination.

[1256]*1256Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.3d 1255, 967 N.Y.S.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heyward-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack