| Matter of Koehl v LaClair |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08095 [67 AD3d 1134] |
| November 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Edward Koehl, Appellant, v Darwin LaClair, asSuperintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Pritzker, J.), rendered February 14, 2008 inWashington County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certainprison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with multiple charges stemmingfrom a search of his cell which revealed, among other things, an altered AM/FM cassette player,a hot pot belonging to another inmate, an altered extension cord, strips of state material whichwere destroyed or altered, an unauthorized glue stick, a metal object found inside a pen, anunauthorized tape dispenser, unauthorized state towels that were destroyed or altered, and anunauthorized piece of wood. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, during which petitionerpleaded guilty to unauthorized exchange, possession of contraband and damaging state property,he was also found guilty of the additional charges of possession of both an altered item andexcess altered clothes. The determination was upheld upon administrative appeal and petitioner,thereafter, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition,and petitioner now appeals.
We affirm. As a threshold matter, we find that none of petitioner's procedural claims ispreserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to raise any objections during the hearing (see [*2]Matter of Smith v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1061 [2009]; Matter of Moore v Fischer, 63 AD3d1401 [2009]). Additionally, we have examined the record and find no evidence that theHearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any bias (see Matter of Gimenez v Artus, 63AD3d 1461, 1462 [2009]; Matter of Chavis v Goord, 58 AD3d 954, 955 [2009]).
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kane, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.