From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 21, 2015
128 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

519043

2015-05-21

In the Matter of Alexander GARCIA, Appellant, v. Albert PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.


Alexander Garcia, Napanoch, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), entered May 1, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use after his urine twice tested positive for cannabis. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and the determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding and, following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that he was improperly removed from the hearing where, after being told to stop talking, he continued to engage in disruptive and argumentative behavior with a correction officer in the hearing room ( see7 NYCRR 254.6[a][2]; see also Matter of Alsaifullah v. Fischer, 118 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 987 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2014], lv. denied24 N.Y.3d 906, 2014 WL 5368870 [2014]; Matter of Rupnarine v. Prack, 118 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 986 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2014] ). The record belies petitioner's further contention that the Hearing Officer failed to consider the evidence presented or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias ( see Matter of Jackson v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1288, 1288, 994 N.Y.S.2d 755 [2014]; Matter of Cepeda v. Goord, 39 A.D.3d 640, 641, 834 N.Y.S.2d 265 [2007] ). The additional contentions raised by petitioner for the first time in his reply brief are not properly before this Court ( see Matter of Thurmond v. Fischer, 112 A.D.3d 1234, 1235, 976 N.Y.S.2d 750 [2013] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

LAHTINEN, J.P., EGAN JR., DEVINE and CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Garcia v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 21, 2015
128 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Garcia v. Prack

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALEXANDER GARCIA, Appellant, v. ALBERT PRACK, as Director…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: May 21, 2015

Citations

128 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 4358
8 N.Y.S.3d 609

Citing Cases

Weston v. Annucci

Under these circumstances, petitioner was provided with sufficient, nonredundant relevant documents to…

Schulz v. Cuomo

Finally, although Schulz asserts that Supreme Court erred in failing to consider the affidavit tendered by…