Matter of Lafferty v Fischer
2009 NY Slip Op 02869 [61 AD3d 1190]
April 16, 2009
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 10, 2009


In the Matter of Adam Lafferty, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[*1]Adam Lafferty, Malone, petitioner pro se.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which foundpetitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After receiving a threatening letter, an inmate grievance program supervisor chargedpetitioner in a misbehavior report with harassment and making threats. A tier III disciplinaryhearing ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty of both charges. Thatdetermination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commence thisCPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting ofthe misbehavior report, the offending letter and testimony adduced at the hearing (see Matter of Knight v McGinnis, 10AD3d 754, 755 [2004]). Although the Hearing Officer initially found that the letter was notauthored in petitioner's handwriting, after having considered all of the evidence, he qualified thatinitial finding and concluded that it did not appear that the letter was prepared in petitioner's"usual" handwriting. The Hearing Officer further rejected as not credible petitioner's statementsdenying knowledge of the letter. Thus, petitioner's evidentiary challenge [*2]to the determination of guilt, premised upon the Hearing Officer'sinitial finding regarding the handwriting in the letter, is unavailing.

We have examined petitioner's remaining procedural contentions, including his claims thathe was denied meaningful employee assistance and the right to present witness testimony andthat the Hearing Officer was biased, and, to the extent preserved, find no basis for annulment.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.