Matter of Douglas v Fischer

Annotate this Case
Matter of Douglas v Fischer 2014 NY Slip Op 01795 Decided on March 20, 2014 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: March 20, 2014
516762

[*1]In the Matter of MARC DOUGLAS, Petitioner,

v

BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: January 21, 2014
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ.


Marc Douglas, Malone, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany
(Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of disobeying a direct order and failing to comply with frisk procedures. The misbehavior report relates that petitioner was observed with a small, white, balloon-type object in his mouth during a frisk and, when ordered to spit it out, petitioner swallowed it. Although no physical evidence was found after petitioner was placed on a two-day contraband watch, the misbehavior report and supporting testimony at the hearing nevertheless provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Kimble v Fischer, 56 AD3d 879, 880 [2008]; Matter of Gee v Goord, 21 AD3d 636, 637 [2005]). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including that he was denied the right to call a witness and improperly denied documentary evidence, have been reviewed and are either unpreserved for this Court's review or without merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. [*2]

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.