Wilson v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Fischer

124 A.D.3d 1384, 997 N.Y.S.2d 664

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 1384 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. Fischer, 124 A.D.3d 1384, 997 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, among other things, dismissed the amended petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1385]*1385Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his amended petition seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, that he violated various inmate rules. Petitioner contends that he was deprived of due process at the disciplinary hearing for a variety of reasons. Because petitioner did not object at the hearing to any of the alleged due process violations, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see generally Matter of Taylor v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2011]; Matter of Morales v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1346, 1346 [2011]). In any event, based on our review of the record, including the confidential portion thereof, we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, among other things, dismissed the amended petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1385]*1385Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his amended petition seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, that he violated various inmate rules. Petitioner contends that he was deprived of due process at the disciplinary hearing for a variety of reasons. Because petitioner did not object at the hearing to any of the alleged due process violations, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see generally Matter of Taylor v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2011]; Matter of Morales v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1346, 1346 [2011]). In any event, based on our review of the record, including the confidential portion thereof, we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 1384, 997 N.Y.S.2d 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack