Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Mobayed v. Fischer

Mobayed v. Fischer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 10, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1266; 932 N.Y.2d 266
Mobayed v. Fischer

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

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

After petitioner’s urine twice tested positive for cannabinoids, he was served with a misbehavior report charging him with the use of a controlled substance. Petitioner was found guilty following a tier III disciplinary hearing and that determination was administratively affirmed. He then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of the corree*1267tion officer who performed the testing and the positive test results provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see Matter of Hughes v Bezio, 84 AD3d 1598, 1598 [2011]; Matter of Ellison v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1538, 1538-1539 [2010]). The discrepancy on various forms as to the time when the first test was performed was adequately explained as a clerical error by the correction officer who performed the tests, and there is no evidence that such error undermined the validity of the test results (see Matter of White v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1483, 1483-1484 [2011]; Matter of Garcia v Fischer, 68 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2009]).

Turning to the procedural claims, any defect in assistance was remedied by the Hearing Officer during the hearing when he provided petitioner with a copy of the requested directive and adjourned the hearing in order to give petitioner an opportunity to prepare his defense (see Matter of Faublas v Rock, 85 AD3d 1519, 1520 [2011]; Matter of Reid v Fischer, 80 AD3d 1035, 1035 [2011]). Finally, the Hearing Officer did not err in denying petitioner’s request to call his assistant as a witness inasmuch as the proposed testimony would have been irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of Canty v Esgrow, 83 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]; Matter of Tafari v Fischer, 78 AD3d 1405, 1406-1407 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]).

Peters, J.P, Lahtinen, Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, 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.