IN RE: Robert CRAWFORD (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: Robert CRAWFORD, Petitioner, v. Daniel F. MARTUSCELLO III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

CV–26–0578

Decided: October 08, 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.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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.¹ 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.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1. Petitioner was charged in a second misbehavior report with refusing a pat frisk but was found not guilty of that charge.

Aarons, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, Powers and Ryba, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network