Brisman v. Fischer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1061We confirm. Initially, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the misbehavior report failed to comply with the particularity requirements of 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (c) (1). The report set forth the rule violations and specific details of the incident, including the information related by the confidential informant, such as to adequately apprise petitioner of the charges against him and enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Mance v Prack, 89 AD3d 1363 [2011]; Matter of Smith v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1491, 1491 [2010], lv denied 18 NY3d 802 [2011]). Moreover, the detailed misbehavior report…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hernandez v. BezioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Nova v. SelskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Estevez v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Key v. GoordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Mance v. PrackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Toro v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Thompson v. MartuscelloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Rivera v. FischerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Hernandez v. PrackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Hernandez v. PrackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.