Appellate Division, Third Department · March 5, 2026 · 252 AD3d 54
GUERRERO v MARTUSCELLO
Read the official decision: 252 AD3d 54
This record is held from search listings because it does not meet the site’s substance floor; the official text is linked below.
Holding The five-day time limit for completing a disciplinary hearing after prehearing segregated confinement under the HALT Act is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, the petitioner was required to preserve the timeliness claim by raising it at the hearing and demonstrating substantial prejudice, which he failed to do.
The court’s words
Because the timeliness of the hearing is directory, petitioner must demonstrate that he was substantially prejudiced by the delay in order to obtain the relief of annulment that he now seeks
252 AD3d 54, at the official text
Petitioner’s failure to challenge the timeliness of the hearing therefore renders his contention unpreserved
252 AD3d 54, at the official text
| Court | Appellate Division, Third Department |
|---|---|
| Decided | March 5, 2026 |
| Citation | 252 AD3d 54 |
| Area of law | Prison and Parole · Administrative Law |
| Week | Week ending March 7, 2026 |
| Official text | Official decision: 252 AD3d 54 |
| Source feed | New York advance sheet: 26nyadv39.pdf |
| Law Watch record id | 800 |
Recommended citation
ESQ HQ, New York Law Watch, GUERRERO v MARTUSCELLO, 252 AD3d 54 (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 5, 2026), https://esqhq.com/decisions/252-ad3d-54/
How this record was made
Holding drafted by Law Watch’s in-house model, graded by three reviewers; every quotation verified word for word against the official text.
Read how Law Watch works