Tingling v. Fischer

108 A.D.3d 989, 968 N.Y.S.2d 915
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 25, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 108 A.D.3d 989 (Tingling 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
Tingling v. Fischer, 108 A.D.3d 989, 968 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

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 Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

During a pat frisk which led to a strip frisk, petitioner was found to have in his possession two packets containing a green leafy substance. The substance tested positive for marihuana. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a controlled substance. At the tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge and explained that he was carrying the drugs for another inmate to pay off a debt. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

[990]*990We confirm. Petitioner is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt because he pleaded guilty with explanation to the charge (see Matter of Perez v Bezio, 98 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2012]; Matter of Ayrhart v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2012]). While he claims that the proper procedure for establishing the chain of custody of the substance tested was not followed (see 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [b]), this is irrelevant in light of his admission to possessing a controlled substance. In any event, we find that this claim is without merit (see Matter of Pinkney v Goord, 302 AD2d 815, 816 [2003]), as are the remaining claims he raises in his brief.

Rose, J.P., Stein, McCarthy 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 Burch v. Venettozzi
2018 NY Slip Op 2865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
MatterofRamosvAnnucci
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Ramos v. Annucci
121 A.D.3d 1486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
MatterofFieldsvPrack
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Fields v. Prack
120 A.D.3d 1510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
MatterofRobinsonvPrack
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Robinson v. Prack
119 A.D.3d 1309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 A.D.3d 989, 968 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tingling-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2013.