Matter of Rodriquez v. Fischer , 28 N.Y.S.3d 636 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: April 21, 2016                    521564
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of NALDY
    RODRIGUEZ,
    Petitioner,
    v                                     MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
    BRAIN FISCHER, as Commissioner
    of Corrections and Community
    Supervision,
    Respondent.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   February 23, 2016
    Before:   Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.
    __________
    Naldy Rodriguez, Cape Vincent, 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of
    violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
    Petitioner was ordered to submit a urine specimen for
    testing and it twice tested positive for the presence of K2–2,
    synthetic marihuana. As a result, he was charged in a
    misbehavior report with using an intoxicant. Following a tier
    III disciplinary hearing at which he pleaded guilty to the
    charge, he was found guilty as charged and the determination was
    later affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78
    proceeding ensued.
    -2-                  521564
    We confirm. Initially, while petitioner challenges the
    sufficiency of the evidence supporting the charge of which he was
    found guilty, inasmuch as he pleaded guilty to the charge, he is
    precluded from raising this argument (see Matter of Abrahams v
    Annucci, 134 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2015]; Matter of Kim v Annucci, 128
    AD3d 1196, 1197 [2015]). To the extent that petitioner argues
    that he was denied the right to call witnesses at the hearing,
    the record reflects that he did not request any witnesses on his
    witness request form and, at the hearing, he unequivocally stated
    that he would not be calling any witnesses and declined when
    given the opportunity to do so (see Matter of Merritt v Fisher,
    108 AD3d 993, 994 [2013]; Matter of Green v Fischer, 77 AD3d
    1011, 1012 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 710 [2011], cert denied ___
    US ___, 
    132 S. Ct. 1047
    [2012]). Thus, we find that petitioner
    waived any objection related to his right to call witnesses (see
    Matter of Olibencia v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community
    Supervision, 131 AD3d 1318, 1318 [2015]). Petitioner's remaining
    claims were not preserved for our review and may not be
    considered (see Matter of Khan v New York State Dept. of Health,
    96 NY2d 879, 880 [2001]; Matter of Barnes v Venettozzi, 135 AD3d
    1250, 1250 [2016]).
    Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.
    ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without
    costs, and petition dismissed.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 521564

Citation Numbers: 138 A.D.3d 1328, 28 N.Y.S.3d 636

Filed Date: 4/21/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023