Welch v. Fischer

121 A.D.3d 1139, 992 N.Y.S.2d 907
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 2, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 1139 (Welch 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
Welch v. Fischer, 121 A.D.3d 1139, 992 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

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.

An investigation into a drug operation revealed that petitioner had conspired to bring marihuana and synthetic marihuana into the correctional facility. As a consequence, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling, possession of contraband and possession of drugs. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty as charged and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

[1140]*1140The misbehavior report, hearing testimony and confidential information, reviewed in camera, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt with regard to the smuggling and possession of contraband and drug charges (see Matter of Carrero v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1299, 1299 [2013]; Matter of Flanders v Fischer, 105 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2013]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the fact that he was never found to be in possession of marihuana or synthetic marihuana does not negate his guilt, as a violation of the rules occurred when petitioner conspired to bring these items into the facility (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii], [xv]; 270.3 [b]; Matter of Maldonado v New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 97 AD3d 873, 874 [2012]; Matter of Sanders v LaClair, 67 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2009]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Peters, PJ., Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, 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 Holmes v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 6025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Harris v. Annucci
145 A.D.3d 1293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Zimmerman v. Annucci
139 A.D.3d 1205 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Moore v. Venettozzi
138 A.D.3d 1288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Shields v. Prack
133 A.D.3d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Guillory v. Annucci
125 A.D.3d 1024 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.3d 1139, 992 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2014.