Jay v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Jay v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Inesti v. Rizzo (nyappdiv, 2017-11-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Inesti v. Rizzo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as he failed to raise that contention in his administrative appeal, he “ ‘thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies!,] and this Court has no discretionary power to reach that issue’ ” (Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364-1365 [4th Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 24 NY3d 975 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We reject those contentions “inasmuch as the evidence petitioner sought to present . . . [and the witnesses he sought to call were] not relevant to the instant charges against petitioner” (Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], appeal dismissed 24 NY3d 975 [2014]; see Matter of Pujals v Fischer, 87 AD3d 767, 767 [2011]; Matter of Mullen v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 29 AD3d 1244, 1244-1245 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We reject those contentions “inasmuch as the evidence petitioner sought to present . . . [and the witnesses he sought to call were] not relevant to the instant charges against petitioner” (Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], appeal dismissed 24 NY3d 975 [2014]; see Matter of Pujals v Fischer, 87 AD3d 767, 767 [2011]; Matter of Mullen v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 29 AD3d 1244, 1244-1245 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" Barnes v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]).
discussed Cited "see" BARNES, ARRELLO v. ANNUCCI, ANTHONY
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 ; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 , lv denied 24 NY3d 975 ).
discussed Cited "see" Barnes v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to present his defense, which was that he only recently received the letters in the mail and did not have time to destroy them before they were found in his cell by a correction officer. “[T]he fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner’s claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias” (Matter of Bekka v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2016]; see Matter of Jay v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 975 [2014]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Nathaniel Jay
v.
Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 2014.
118 A.D.3d 1364
Dejoseph, Fahey, Peradotto, Scudder, Valentino.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered February 4, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that he violated multiple inmate rules. “Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record does not establish that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from the alleged bias” (Matter of Amaker v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1371, 1372 [2013]; see Matter of Alvarez v Fischer, 94 AD3d 1404, 1406 [2012]). “The mere fact that the Hearing Officer ruled against the petitioner is insufficient to establish bias” (Matter of Edwards v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1328, 1329 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Also contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Hearing Officer did not improperly deny petitioner his right to present evidence inasmuch as the evidence petitioner sought to present, i.e., petitioner’s prison disciplinary history, was not relevant to the instant charges against petitioner (see Matter of Pujals v Fischer, 87 AD3d 767, 767 [2011]). In any event, the failure of the Hearing Officer to permit petitioner to submit that evidence “does not require annulment of the administrative determination, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of petitioner’s guilt” (Matter of Auricchio v Goord, 275 AD2d 842, 842 [2000]).

Finally, petitioner challenges the penalty imposed. Inasmuch as petitioner failed to raise that challenge in his administrative appeal, he “thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and this Court has no discretionary power to reach that issue” (Matter of Medina v Coughlin, 202 AD2d 1000, 1000[*1365] [1994]; see Matter of Francisco v Coombe, 231 AD2d 917, 917 [1996]; see generally Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, 1071 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]).

Present — Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Peradotto, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.