Matter of Wilson v Fischer

Annotate this Case
Matter of Wilson v Fischer 2015 NY Slip Op 00139 Decided on January 2, 2015 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 2, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
1388 CA 13-01695

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF JUNIOR WILSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

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.



WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



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

Memorandum: 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; Matter of Morales v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1346, 1346). In any event, based on our review of the record, including the confidential portion thereof, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit.

Entered: January 2, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.