Calendar Date: April 3, 2018Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.__________Curtis Phillips, Wallkill, appellant pro se.Barbara D. Underwood, Acting Attorney General, Albany(Frank Brady of counsel), for respondents.__________Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fisher, J.),entered August 8, 2017 in Ulster County, which dismissedpetitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of respondent Department ofCorrections and Community Supervision recalculating petitioner’smaximum expiration date.In 1997, petitioner was convicted of numerous crimes andsentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 5to 15 years. Following petitioner’s conditional release onparole, he was arrested on July 27, 2006 and held in custody onmultiple new felony charges. Although petitioner remainedincarcerated, no parole violation proceeding was commenced andhis 1997 sentence continued to run uninterrupted until itsmaximum expiration date of April 18, 2010. Thereafter,petitioner was convicted on the new felony charges and sentencedin 2011 to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 20years. Petitioner was initially credited with 1,666 days of jailtime against his 2011 sentence, which was calculated from thetime of his arrest on July 27, 2006 until the imposition ofsentencing on February 16, 2011. Subsequently, an amended jailtime certification reduced petitioner’s jail time credit towardhis 2011 sentence to 304 days, representing the time from April19, 2010 to February 16, 2011. Consequently, respondentDepartment of Corrections and Community Supervision recalculatedpetitioner’s maximum expiration date as April 12, 2030.Petitioner’s challenge to this recalculation was denied,prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued.We affirm. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, theDepartment of Corrections and Community Supervision did notcalculate petitioner’s 1997 sentence and 2011 sentence to runconsecutively. Furthermore, we find no error in the amount ofjail time credit applied against petitioner’s 2011 sentence inorder to recalculate his maximum expiration date. Penal Law§ 70.30 (3) provides, as is relevant here, that jail time credit“shall be calculated from the date custody under the chargecommenced to the date the sentence commences and shall notinclude any time that is credited against the term or maximumterm of any previously imposed sentence or period of post-releasesupervision.” Here, the number of days that petitioner spent inlocal custody between July 27, 2006 and April 18, 2010 wascredited toward his 1997 sentence, which resulted in thecompletion of that sentence on April 18, 2010. Becausepetitioner received credit for that time period, it cannot alsobe used as a credit toward his 2011 sentence (see Matter ofParker v Annucci, 130 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2015]; Matter of Nunez vState of N.Y. Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 125 AD3d1030, 1030 [2015]; People ex rel. Moultrie v Yelich, 95 AD3d1571, 1572-1573 [2012]; Matter of Cristostomo v Fischer, 93 AD3d976, 977 [2012]). As such, we find that the petition wasproperly dismissed.Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.,concur.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
