Mobayed v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mobayed v. Fischer

89 A.D.3d 1266, 932 N.Y.2d 266

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1266 (Mobayed 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

Mobayed v. Fischer, 89 A.D.3d 1266, 932 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

After petitioner’s urine twice tested positive for cannabinoids, he was served with a misbehavior report charging him with the use of a controlled substance. Petitioner was found guilty following a tier III disciplinary hearing and that determination was administratively affirmed. He then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of the corree[1267]*1267tion officer who performed the testing and the positive test results provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Hughes v Bezio, 84 AD3d 1598, 1598 [2011]; Matter of Ellison v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1538, 1538-1539 [2010]). The discrepancy on various forms as to the time when the first test was performed was adequately explained as a clerical error by the correction officer who performed the tests, and there is no evidence that such error undermined the validity of the test results (see Matter of White v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1483, 1483-1484 [2011]; Matter of Garcia v Fischer, 68 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2009]).

Turning to the procedural claims, any defect in assistance was remedied by the Hearing Officer during the hearing when he provided petitioner with a copy of the requested directive and adjourned the hearing in order to give petitioner an opportunity to prepare his defense (see Matter of Faublas v Rock, 85 AD3d 1519, 1520 [2011]; Matter of Reid v Fischer, 80 AD3d 1035, 1035 [2011]). Finally, the Hearing Officer did not err in denying petitioner’s request to call his assistant as a witness inasmuch as the proposed testimony would have been irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of Canty v Esgrow, 83 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; Matter of Tafari v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1405, 1406-1407 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]).

Peters, J.P, Lahtinen, Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, 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

After petitioner’s urine twice tested positive for cannabinoids, he was served with a misbehavior report charging him with the use of a controlled substance. Petitioner was found guilty following a tier III disciplinary hearing and that determination was administratively affirmed. He then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of the corree[1267]*1267tion officer who performed the testing and the positive test results provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Hughes v Bezio, 84 AD3d 1598, 1598 [2011]; Matter of Ellison v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1538, 1538-1539 [2010]). The discrepancy on various forms as to the time when the first test was performed was adequately explained as a clerical error by the correction officer who performed the tests, and there is no evidence that such error undermined the validity of the test results (see Matter of White v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1483, 1483-1484 [2011]; Matter of Garcia v Fischer, 68 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2009]).

Turning to the procedural claims, any defect in assistance was remedied by the Hearing Officer during the hearing when he provided petitioner with a copy of the requested directive and adjourned the hearing in order to give petitioner an opportunity to prepare his defense (see Matter of Faublas v Rock, 85 AD3d 1519, 1520 [2011]; Matter of Reid v Fischer, 80 AD3d 1035, 1035 [2011]). Finally, the Hearing Officer did not err in denying petitioner’s request to call his assistant as a witness inasmuch as the proposed testimony would have been irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of Canty v Esgrow, 83 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; Matter of Tafari v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1405, 1406-1407 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]).

Peters, J.P, Lahtinen, Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 1266, 932 N.Y.2d 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobayed-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack