Lopez v. Fischer

91 A.D.3d 1223, 937 N.Y.2d 451
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1223 (Lopez 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
Lopez v. Fischer, 91 A.D.3d 1223, 937 N.Y.2d 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

We confirm. Initially, inasmuch as petitioner pleaded guilty to the unauthorized medication charge, he is precluded from chai[1224]*1224lenging the determination of guilt with respect thereto (see Matter of Cruz v Walsh, 87 AD3d 1234, 1234 [2011]). As to the remaining charges, the misbehavior reports, supporting documentation and hearing testimony, including petitioner’s admissions, provide substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see Matter of Cole v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 87 AD3d 1243, 1243 [2011]; Matter of Lamere v Fischer, 87 AD3d 768, 768 [2011]). “A reasonable inference of possession arises from the fact that the weapon was found in an area within petitioner’s control” (Matter of Hamilton v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1614 [2011] [citations omitted]), even though his access was not exclusive (see Matter of Rogers v Bezio, 67 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2009]). Petitioner’s contention that the charges were in retaliation for grievances he had filed presented a credibility issue to be resolved by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of White v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1249, 1250 [2011]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2011]). Finally, a review of the record demonstrates that the finding of guilt was based upon the evidence adduced, rather than any alleged hearing officer bias (see Matter of Hardy v Smith, 87 AD3d 779, 780 [2011]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for this Court’s review.

Peters, J.P, Rose, Malone Jr., Stein 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

Related

Matter of Angarita v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 6690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Karlin v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 5647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Piletas v. Venettozzi
2017 NY Slip Op 5149 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Aguirre v. Fischer
111 A.D.3d 1219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Boynton v. Fischer
105 A.D.3d 1231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Barnes v. Prack
101 A.D.3d 1277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Matthews v. Fischer
95 A.D.3d 1529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 A.D.3d 1223, 937 N.Y.2d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2012.