Matter of Crawford v. Martuscello

Matter of Crawford v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 05838 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 Robert Crawford, Petitioner, v Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent. Decided and Entered:October 8, 2026 CV-26-0578 Calendar Date: September 11, 2026 Before: Aarons, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, Powers And Ryba, JJ. Robert Crawford, Dannemora, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu 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, an incarcerated individual, was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing contraband and smuggling.FN1 The charges stemmed from an incident during which petitioner, after being ordered to submit to a pat frisk outside of his cell, ran down the gallery and tossed a black sock containing one rose gold iPhone, one white Apple charging cube and one charging cable to the gallery below. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Upon administrative review, the determination was upheld. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. The misbehavior report, hearing testimony, the unusual incident report and supporting documentation, as well as the videos of the incident, provide substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see Matter of Williams v Martuscello, 248 AD3d 1573, 1573-1574 [3d Dept 2026], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Sept. 24, 2026]; Matter of Basu v Rodriguez, 247 AD3d 1326, 1327 [3d Dept 2026]). The testimony of petitioner that he did not possess the items in question, or that the hue of the cell phone's color described in the misbehavior report was different than the one confiscated, presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Ruben v Martuscello, 240 AD3d 1119, 1120 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Waters v Annucci, 225 AD3d 1029, 1030 [3d Dept 2024]). To the extent that petitioner's remaining procedural contentions are properly before us, they have been considered and found to be without merit. Aarons, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, Powers and Ryba, JJ., concur. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Petitioner was charged in a second misbehavior report with refusing a pat frisk but was found not guilty of that charge.