LaFontant v. Fischer

51 A.D.3d 1347, 860 N.Y.S.2d 637
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 1347 (LaFontant 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
LaFontant v. Fischer, 51 A.D.3d 1347, 860 N.Y.S.2d 637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

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.

After a female correction officer observed petitioner sitting on his bed and masturbating with his penis exposed, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting lewd conduct. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty as charged. That determination was administratively affirmed, prompting petitioner to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the hearing testimony from the authoring correction officer, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Rodriguez v Selsky, 47 AD3d 1173, 1173 [2008]). Petitioner’s assertion that he was not masturbating but, instead, was providing himself with massage therapy for certain medical conditions created a credibility issue for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Vigliotti v Selsky, 45 AD3d 946, 946-947 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 702 [2008]). Petitioner’s remain[1348]*1348ing contentions, including his claim that he was denied the right to present witness testimony, have been examined and, to the extent preserved, are unavailing.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello, Kane and Stein, 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

Collins v. Fischer
109 A.D.3d 1040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Darshan v. Bango
83 A.D.3d 1302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Hodges v. Fischer
71 A.D.3d 1295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Warren v. Fischer
63 A.D.3d 1466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Pena v. Selsky
53 A.D.3d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 1347, 860 N.Y.S.2d 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafontant-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2008.