| Matter of Williams v Goord |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00587 [47 AD3d 1170] |
| January 31, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Thomas Williams, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 14, 2007 inClinton County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prisondisciplinary rule.
Petitioner, an inmate, pleaded guilty during a tier III disciplinary hearing to violating theprison disciplinary rule prohibiting fighting. Upon his subsequent administrative appeal, thedetermination of guilt against petitioner was affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLRarticle 78 proceeding, essentially alleging that the Hearing Officer improperly granted a hearingextension and that the hearing was untimely. Supreme Court disagreed and dismissed thepetition. Petitioner now appeals.
We affirm. Upon our review of the record, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention thatthe hearing was not commenced in a timely fashion. On June 1, 2006, the misbehavior report wasissued and petitioner was confined pending a hearing. A request for an extension of time inwhich to conduct the hearing was granted on June 7, 2006 and the hearing thereafter commencedon June 8, 2006. Noting that the day on which the misbehavior report was written is to beexcluded from the computation of days (see Matter of Barnes v Goord, 20 AD3d 615, 616 [2005]), thehearing was appropriately commenced within the requisite seven-day period (see 7NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]).[*2]
Finally, inasmuch as petitioner argues for the first time onthis appeal that the determination of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence, his claim isunpreserved for our review (see Matterof Woodward v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2007]). In any event, having pleadedguilty to the charge, petitioner is precluded from making such a challenge (see Matter of Cody v Goord, 17 AD3d943, 944 [2005]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed, without costs.