Vidal-Ortiz v. Fischer
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Brooks v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Harvey v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cole v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cicio v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cicio v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Stinson v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Harrison v. Prack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Encarnacion v. Bellnier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Perez v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Fuentes v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
During the course of an investigation, it was determined that petitioner sold marihuana to a confidential informant on two occasions. When petitioner did not receive payment for the second sale, he approached the informant in the yard, accompanied by four or five unidentified Spanish-speaking
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Washington v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1659, 1659 [2010]; Matter of Griffith v Selsky, 53 AD3d 884 [2008]). Petitioner’s denial of any wrongdoing presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Rivera v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1210, 1210 [2007]; Matter of Jackson v Goord, 8 AD3d 852, 853 [2004]). His remaining claims are unpreserved due to his failure to raise them at the disciplinary hearing.
Mercure, J.P, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.