Opinion
May 22, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner's contention that his hearing was held in violation of the seven-day rule set forth in 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) is without merit. The regulation in question provides, in pertinent part, that a hearing be commenced within seven days of "the inmate's initial confinement pending said * * * hearing" ( 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]). Therefore, as the Third Department has held, where the inmate is already in restrictive confinement due to other unrelated disciplinary proceedings, his confinement is not due to the pending disciplinary charges. Accordingly, the seven-day rule is inapplicable (see, Matter of Young v Coughlin, 144 A.D.2d 753; Matter of Taylor v Coughlin, 143 A.D.2d 493, 494; Matter of La Boy v LeFevre, 136 A.D.2d 815, 816; Matter of Diaz v Coughlin, 134 A.D.2d 668, 669; cf., Matter of Giano v Sullivan, Sup Ct, Westchester County, Apr. 21, 1987, Cerrato, J.).
Contrary to the petitioner's further contention, the hearing was completed within the time specified in an authorized extension, as permitted by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (b). Since the 14th day following the writing of the earliest misbehavior reports was a Sunday, and the 15th day was a public holiday, the request for an extension on the 16th day was timely (see, General Construction Law §§ 24, 25-a; Matter of Dziedzic v Kelly, 143 A.D.2d 537; cf., Matter of Brito v Sullivan, 141 A.D.2d 819). Further, the transcript of the hearing minutes does indicate the reason for the delay, as required by 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (b). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.