Santana v. Fischer

78 A.D.3d 1364, 910 N.Y.S.2d 386
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 10, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 1364 (Santana 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
Santana v. Fischer, 78 A.D.3d 1364, 910 N.Y.S.2d 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

While an authorized mail watch was in effect, petitioner, a prison inmate, was discovered to have sent letters to his sister containing gang information and which she was to forward to other incarcerated gang members. As a result, petitioner was served with a misbehavior report and, after a tier III disciplinan hearing, was found guilty of gang activity and violating facility correspondence procedures. That determination was administratively affirmed, prompting this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of the correction officer who examined petitioner’s mail and authored the misbehavior report and copies of the letters provide substantial evidence to support the determination (see Matter of Lozada v Fischer, 68 AD3d 1306, 1306 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]; Matter of Lebron v Selsky, 53 AD3d 962, 962 [2008]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the authorized mail watch contained a sufficient basis, including specific facts, to satisfy the requirements of 7 NYCRR 720.3 (e) (1) (see Matter of Lozada v Fischer, 68 AD3d at 1306; Matter of Devivo v Bezio, 63 AD3d 1489, 1490 [2009]). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

[1365]*1365Mercure, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., 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

Related

Gonzalez v. Annucci
149 A.D.3d 1455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Ramos v. Annucci
141 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Mena v. Fischer
115 A.D.3d 1039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Chandler v. Fischer
102 A.D.3d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Kimbrough v. Fischer
96 A.D.3d 1256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 A.D.3d 1364, 910 N.Y.S.2d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santana-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2010.