Infantino v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Infantino v. Fischer

116 A.D.3d 1305, 983 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedApril 24, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 116 A.D.3d 1305 (Infantino 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

Infantino v. Fischer, 116 A.D.3d 1305, 983 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of stealing. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing, including admissions by petitioner, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Accardi v Goord, 34 AD3d 945, 946 [2006]). To the extent that petitioner challenges the use of a speaker phone to receive testimony, this argument was not preserved for our review by any objection at the hearing (see Matter of Murphy v Goord, 272 AD2d 730, 730 [2000]; Matter of Rizzuto v Coombe, 225 AD2d 961, 962 [1996]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry 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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of stealing. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report and testimony at the hearing, including admissions by petitioner, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Accardi v Goord, 34 AD3d 945, 946 [2006]). To the extent that petitioner challenges the use of a speaker phone to receive testimony, this argument was not preserved for our review by any objection at the hearing (see Matter of Murphy v Goord, 272 AD2d 730, 730 [2000]; Matter of Rizzuto v Coombe, 225 AD2d 961, 962 [1996]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 1305, 983 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/infantino-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack