From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spirles v. Laramay

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Mar 10, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

03-10-2016

In the Matter of Michael SPIRLES, Petitioner, v. Lieutenant J. LARAMAY, as Acting Captain 102, Respondent.

Michael Spirles, Romulus, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Michael Spirles, Romulus, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Five Points Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possession of contraband after a search of his cell uncovered rosary beads with a metal cross wrapped in clothing and four small pieces of magnet stuck to the wall anchor bolts above petitioner's bunk. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Substantial evidence in the record, including the misbehavior report, petitioner's property intake sheet and testimony at the hearing, supports the determination that the items discovered in petitioner's cell were contraband (see Matter of Machicote v. Bezio, 87 A.D.3d 763, 763, 928 N.Y.S.2d 382 [2011] ). Further, with respect to the rosary beads, the record establishes that the beads failed to comply with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision directive specifying the types of rosary beads permitted within the facility (see Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision Directive No. 4202[XIV][B] ). Petitioner's exculpatory explanation for the items being in his cell presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Mercer v. James, 98 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 951 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2012] ; Matter of Machicote v. Bezio, 87 A.D.3d at 764, 928 N.Y.S.2d 382 ). Petitioner's remaining contentions, including that the Hearing Officer was biased, were not raised at the hearing or on administrative appeal and, therefore, are unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Peoples v. Selsky, 33 A.D.3d 1179, 1180, 822 N.Y.S.2d 824 [2006] ).

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR. and LYNCH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Spirles v. Laramay

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Mar 10, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Spirles v. Laramay

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Michael SPIRLES, Petitioner, v. Lieutenant J. LARAMAY, as…

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

Date published: Mar 10, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 1400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1726
26 N.Y.S.3d 489

Citing Cases

Legette v. Rodriguez

To the extent that petitioner asserts that the hearing was not completed in a timely manner because the…

Haigler v. Lilley

Likewise, his claim that he brought the sneakers from his prior facility, which was contradicted by the…