Scott v. Fischer

92 A.D.3d 1000, 937 N.Y.2d 479
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 2, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 1000 (Scott 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
Scott v. Fischer, 92 A.D.3d 1000, 937 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentary evidence, together with the testimony of the correction officer who wrote the report and petitioner’s own admission to writing the letters, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Cornwall v Fischer, 73 AD3d [1001]*10011367, 1368 [2010]; Matter of Pertillar v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2009]). We find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the misbehavior report was not written in a timely manner inasmuch as it was prepared as the result of a lengthy investigation, which entailed a 60-day mail watch, and was not completed until after all of the intercepted letters had been analyzed for gang-related references. Under the circumstances presented, we find that the misbehavior report was prepared “as soon as practicable” in accordance with the requirements of 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (a) (see Matter of Norris v Fischer, 71 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2010]; Matter of Decastro v Prack, 62 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2009]). Furthermore, we find nothing in the record to support petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct the hearing in a fair and impartial manner or that the determination flowed from the Hearing Officer’s alleged bias (see Matter of Al-Matin v Brown, 86 AD3d 902, 902-903 [2011]; Matter of Barnes v Bezio, 86 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the mail watch was not properly authorized, have been considered and are unavailing.

Peters, J.E, Spain, Malone Jr., Kavanagh 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

Matter of Bachiller v. Annucci
2018 NY Slip Op 7505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Gonzalez v. Annucci
149 A.D.3d 1455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Caldarola v. Annucci
148 A.D.3d 1396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Legeros v. Annucci
147 A.D.3d 1175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Sutton v. Prack
107 A.D.3d 1250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Tinker v. Bezio
106 A.D.3d 1356 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.3d 1000, 937 N.Y.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2012.