Posted by Marc Fishman
Date: January 18, 2025
Source: Email correspondence and January 23, 2024 court transcript (People v. Fishman)

---

Summary

Former New Rochelle Police Officer Lane Schlesinger refused to sign the mandatory evidence certification form required under New York’s enhanced discovery laws.
By refusing, Schlesinger avoided disclosing 9.5 hours of withheld police video footage and an audio call with Marc Fishman’s ex-wife — evidence that Fishman says would have exonerated him.

According to Fishman, the District Attorney’s Office was obligated to investigate once an officer refused to sign, but instead conspired with police to conceal exculpatory evidence, including footage from seven lobby cameras at the supervised visitation site.

---

Email Thread

From: Marc Fishman rentdriver@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, January 18, 2025, at 11:53 AM
To: James Christopher
Subject: Fwd: “Schlesinger decided not to answer evidence disclosure questions / backup for police misconduct in my case (1/23/24 transcript, People v. Fishman)”

Line 12. Schlesinger refused to sign mandatory evidence certification form.
Had he signed, Schlesinger would have had to disclose the withheld police 9.5 hours video and audio call with ex that exonerates me.
Enhanced discovery laws do not permit a cop to refuse to sign.
DA required to investigate if cop refuses to sign.
Any DA would know there were seven lobby cameras.
DA and police conspired not to give exonerating evidence to me/my defense.

---

Forwarded message
From: Marc Fishman rentdriver@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, January 1, 2025, at 5:44 AM
To: Caner Demirayak caner@canerlawoffice.com
Subject: “Schlesinger decided not to answer evidence disclosure questions / backup for police misconduct in my case (1/23/24 transcript, People v. Fishman)”

Dear Caner,

Happy New Year.

Wanted to make sure you had this transcript.

1/23/20 Amit Parab statement that Schlesinger refused to sign the evidence certification.

Another instance that coincides with the Attorney General’s funding of police misconduct.

Thanks,
Marc Fishman

---

Transcript Excerpt (January 23, 2024 – People v. Fishman)

MR. PARAB: “We also did a 1k inquiry of the police officer who’s going to testify in this particular case. He decided not to answer the questions, but he did indicate that Mr. Fishman does have a pending federal lawsuit against him.”

(Source: Page 12, January 23, 2024 transcript, People v. Fishman)

---

Context

This transcript confirms that Schlesinger — the same officer later designated by the New York Attorney General’s Office as a “Pattern Misconduct” officer — was directly involved in Fishman’s case and refused to comply with required evidence disclosure.
Fishman argues this refusal, combined with the DA’s inaction, constitutes suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963).