Brown v. Fischer
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- MatterofRodriguezvFischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- MatterofMalettavAmoia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rossi v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rossi v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rodriguez v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rodriguez v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Maletta v. Amoia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Maletta v. Amoia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Booker v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Booker v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Flanders v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Flanders v. Fischer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
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.
We confirm. Substantial evidence, in the form of the misbehavior report, testimony at the hearing and confidential information, supports the determination finding petitioner guilty of conspiring with his girlfriend to smuggle drugs into the correctional facility (see Matter of Ware v Hendel, 42 AD3d 601, 602 [2007]). The fact that neither petitioner nor his girlfriend actually possessed the marihuana does not negate petitioner’s guilt, as violation of those rules occurred when petitioner solicited and conspired with another to bring the drugs into the facility (see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xv]; [15] [i]; see also Matter of Sanders v LaClair, 67 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2009]).
We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contention that the misbehavior report and the unusual incident report are inconsistent and find it to be without merit.
Peters, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Stein and McCarthy, 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.