From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castillo v. Fischer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Sep 18, 2014
120 A.D.3d 1493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-09-18

In the Matter of Bienvenido CASTILLO, Appellant, v. Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Bienvenido Castillo, Wallkill, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


Bienvenido Castillo, Wallkill, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered January 24, 2013 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting weapons possession. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and we affirm. Contrary to petitioner'sassertion, his disciplinary hearing was commenced within the time period established by a valid extension ( see Matter of Pooler v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1256, 1257, 969 N.Y.S.2d 564 [2013], lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 855, 2013 WL 6009632 [2013]; Matter of Lashway v. Kuhlmann, 282 A.D.2d 850, 850, 722 N.Y.S.2d 926 [2001] ). Although petitioner further contends that he was denied adequate employee assistance, the Hearing Officer remedied any deficiencies in this regard, and petitioner did not demonstrate any prejudice ( see Matter of Espinal v. Fischer, 114 A.D.3d 978, 979, 979 N.Y.S.2d 864 [2014]; Matter of Pooler v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d at 1257, 969 N.Y.S.2d 564). Finally, petitioner did not argue that he received inadequate notice of the charges against him at the hearing and, as such, Supreme Court appropriately found that issue to be unpreserved for review ( see Matter of Valdez v. Fischer, 74 A.D.3d 1596, 1597, 904 N.Y.S.2d 783 [2010] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. PETERS, P.J., STEIN, GARRY, EGAN JR. and DEVINE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Castillo v. Fischer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Sep 18, 2014
120 A.D.3d 1493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Castillo v. Fischer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Bienvenido CASTILLO, Appellant, v. Brian FISCHER, as…

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2014

Citations

120 A.D.3d 1493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
120 A.D.3d 1493
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 6225

Citing Cases

Shoga v. Annucci

We confirm. Initially, we reject petitioner's contention that the rehearing was not conducted in a timely…

Patterson v. Venettozzi

e hearing was not untimely as it was commenced and completed within the time periods provided in the valid…