Matter of Pierre v Annucci
2020 NY Slip Op 01750 [181 AD3d 1179]
March 13, 2020
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2020


[*1]
 In the Matter of Keion Pierre, Appellant,
v
Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Wyoming County-Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Adam W. Koch of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered February 19, 2019, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, that he violated various inmate rules. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the determination. Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer failed to comply with 7 NYCRR 254.5 (b) inasmuch as the testimony of petitioner's requested witness was taken outside his presence (see Matter of Trapani v Annucci, 117 AD3d 1473, 1474 [4th Dept 2014]; Matter of Jones v Smith, 116 AD2d 993, 993 [4th Dept 1986]; cf. Matter of Janis v Prack, 106 AD3d 1297, 1297 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 864 [2013]). This Court has no discretionary power to reach that contention because petitioner failed to raise a challenge on that ground in his administrative appeal and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect thereto (see Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, 1071 [4th Dept 1992], appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834 [1993]; see also Matter of Godwin v Goord, 270 AD2d 881, 881 [4th Dept 2000]). We reject petitioner's further contention that the Hearing Officer was biased and that the determination flowed from the alleged bias (see Matter of Jones v Annucci, 141 AD3d 1108, 1109 [4th Dept 2016]). Present—Whalen, P.J., Curran, Troutman, Winslow and Bannister, JJ.