Marc Fishman’s case is not hard to summarize. What’s hard is accepting that the system can stare at serious credibility problems and still keep the machinery running.

This is the simplest way to understand what happened—without legal jargon, without partisan spin, and without assuming you already know the backstory.

December 15, 2018: Arrest during supervised visitation

Fishman says he was arrested during a court-ordered supervised visitation with his child—after paying for a supervisor and with a disability aide present. The arrest becomes the foundation for years of criminal litigation and family separation.

2019–2023: Litigation grinds on while key disputes remain unresolved

Over time, Fishman’s narrative becomes consistent: the system proceeded as though the case was routine, while he claims key evidence and disability accommodations were not treated as urgent or mandatory.

May 24, 2024: New York AG issues a “pattern of misconduct” finding against the arresting officer

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office issued findings concluding Officer Lane Schlesinger engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving abuse of authority, after review of records, interviews, and investigative material. This isn’t a social-media label; it’s an official conclusion by the AG’s office.

Fishman’s supporters argue this should have triggered immediate re-evaluation of cases that depended on Schlesinger’s credibility—especially ones where exculpatory evidence is alleged to exist.

September 2025: Sentencing and an emergency scramble for a stay

By September 2025, Fishman faced a 45-day jail sentence and pursued emergency relief while appealing. Communications show a rush to secure a docket number and navigate filing mechanics under time pressure, while emphasizing disability barriers and medical distress.

September 22, 2025: “No interim relief” — appeal continues on the normal track

An email thread indicates the Order to Show Cause was executed with no interim relief granted, and the appeal proceeded on a regular schedule.

The core dispute today

Fishman’s central claim is straightforward:

• exonerating evidence exists (including video/audio, per his account),
• the case relied on an officer later found to have engaged in a pattern of misconduct,
• and the courts and prosecutors have not treated those facts as outcome-determinative.

Whether the courts ultimately agree is what the appeal will decide. But the timeline makes one point unavoidable: this is not just “a defendant unhappy with the outcome.” There are institutional credibility and access questions that should be answered in public.