Matter of Reynoso v Fischer

Annotate this Case
Matter of Reynoso v Fischer 2009 NY Slip Op 08117 [67 AD3d 1166] November 12, 2009 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 6, 2010

In the Matter of Ignacio Reynoso, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

—[*1] Ignacio Reynoso, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

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 finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of engaging in lewd conduct. That determination was administratively affirmed and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the eyewitness misbehavior report and confidential testimony heard by the Hearing Officer in camera, supports the determination of guilt (see Matter of Arnold v Fischer, 60 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2009]; Matter of Gallo v Fischer, 50 AD3d 1374, 1374 [2008]). We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to call inmate witnesses to testify, as the requested witnesses executed written refusal forms indicating that they had no knowledge of the alleged incident (see Matter of Wilson v Goord, 47 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2008]). We have examined petitioner's remaining claims, including that he was deprived of adequate employee assistance and that the Hearing Officer was biased, and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. [*2]

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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.