Pitts v. Fischer, 54 A.D.3d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Pitts v. Fischer, 54 A.D.3d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Medina v. Five Points Corr. Facility, 153 A.D.3d 1471 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 477 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Matter of Medina v. Five Points Corr. Facility, 153 A.D.3d 1471 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).published
    Further, we reject his contention that petitioner was improperly removed from the hearing, as the record reflects that he failed to comply with the Hearing Officer’s repeated warnings to stop interrupting him or he would be removed (see Ma…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
  • West v. Prack, 96 A.D.3d 1314 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Lance Pitts
v.
Brian S. Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 7, 2008.
Published opinion
54 A.D.3d 477
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

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 a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of illicit drug use. We now confirm.

The misbehavior report, together with the positive drug test results and testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Hayes v Goord, 26 AD3d 546, 546 [2006]). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Hearing Officer did not improperly remove him from the hearing. The record reveals that, despite warnings from the Hearing Officer, petitioner repeatedly interrupted the Hearing Officer and disrupted the proceedings (see Matter of Acevedo v Goord, 32 AD3d 1143, 1144-1145 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the chain of custody was deficient, have been considered and found to be unavailing.

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