Matter of Alston v. Martuscello

Matter of Alston v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 05834 October 8, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter oF Ronald Alston, Petitioner, v Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Decided and Entered:October 8, 2026 CV-25-1246 Calendar Date: September 11, 2026 Before: Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Fisher, Mackey And Corcoran, JJ. Main Street Legal Services, Inc., Queens (Erin Tomlinson of counsel), for petitioner. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Taylor A. Sutton of counsel), for respondent. [*1] 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 charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling, possessing contraband and possessing an escape item. According to the misbehavior report, while processing petitioner's property upon his transfer from another correctional facility, a frisk of a law dictionary that was in his belongings revealed a cell phone secreted in the back cover. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of possessing contraband and smuggling, which determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, unusual incident report, related documentation and video footage from the property processing room provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Basu v Rodriguez, 247 AD3d 1326, 1327 [3d Dept 2026]; Matter of Delos Santos v Goord, 4 AD3d 709, 710 [3d Dept 2004]). Any minor inconsistencies in the documentation presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Basu v Rodriguez, 247 AD3d at 1327; Matter of Wilson v McCarthy, 236 AD3d 1172, 1173 [3d Dept 2025]), as did petitioner's speculative assertion that someone tampered with his property bag (see Matter of Davey v Annucci, 153 AD3d 992, 993 [3d Dept 2017]; Matter of Giano v Prack, 105 AD3d 1228, 1228 [3d Dept 2013]; Matter of Vargas v Selsky, 69 AD3d 1078, 1078 [3d Dept 2010]).FN1 Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Fisher, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ., concur. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 To the extent petitioner contends that the directives for securing and transporting personal property are not being properly followed, such challenges are more appropriately addressed through the grievance process (see generally Matter of Hone v McIntosh, 245 AD3d 1119, 1121 [3d Dept 2026], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Sept. 24, 2026]; Matter of Wilson v Annucci, 205 AD3d 1163, 1164-1165 [3d Dept 2022]).