In re Robinson v. Brian Fischer

2 Citing cases

  1. Glanda v. Annucci

    153 A.D.3d 1531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    We confirm. Initially, although petitioner has been released from involuntary protective custody and transferred to another correctional facility, the petition is not moot given that he seeks expungement of the determination from his institutional record (see Matter of Melendez v. Commissioner of the Dept. of Corrections & Community Supervision, 127 A.D.3d 1369, 1369–1370, 6 N.Y.S.3d 323 [2015] ; Matter of Jones v. Fischer, 126 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 3 N.Y.S.3d 641 [2015] ). Turning to the merits, the involuntary protective custody recommendation, together with the testimony of the lieutenant who prepared it and petitioner's own testimony, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination upholding the recommendation (see generally Matter of Jones v. Fischer, 126 A.D.3d at 1218, 3 N.Y.S.3d 641 ; Matter of Robinson v. Fischer, 82 A.D.3d 1630, 1631, 919 N.Y.S.2d 633 [2011] ). Furthermore, we do not find that petitioner was improperly denied the right to call three correction officers as witnesses given that they had no personal knowledge of the incident and their testimony would have been irrelevant (see Matter of Sanders v. Annucci, 128 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 7 N.Y.S.3d 733 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 964, 18 N.Y.S.3d 600, 40 N.E.3d 578 [2015] ; Matter of Lane v. Kirkpatrick, 68 A.D.3d 1280, 1281, 890 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2009] ). In view of the foregoing, we decline to disturb respondent's determination.

  2. Pryor v. State

    92 A.D.3d 1047 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 22 times

    To that end, an inmate who may be a potential victim, and who does not voluntarily accept admission into protective custody, may be restricted from communication with the general inmate population ( see 7 NYCRR 330.2[b] ). In our view, a decision to place an inmate in IPC is a discretionary one made by DOCCS in furtherance of its duty to protect the safety of both the inmates and the correctional facility ( see e.g. Matter of Robinson v. Fischer, 82 A.D.3d 1630, 1631, 919 N.Y.S.2d 633 [2011]; Matter of Bartley v. Fischer, 73 A.D.3d 1363, 1364, 901 N.Y.S.2d 743 [2010]; Matter of Lane v. Kirkpatrick, 68 A.D.3d 1280, 1281, 890 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2009] ). Accordingly, defendant is entitled to governmental immunity regarding such decisions.