| Matter of Reyes v Goord |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01956 [49 AD3d 546] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard Reyes, Petitioner, v Glenn S.Goord, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin N. Gutman and DavidLawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York StateDepartment of Correctional Services dated June 16, 2006, which affirmed a determination of ahearing officer dated April 26, 2006, made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding thepetitioner guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules 100.10 and 104.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B][1] [i]; [5] [ii]) and imposing penalties.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
When reviewing a prison disciplinary decision, this Court must decide only whether thedetermination was supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter ofLahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140 [1987]; Matter of Igartua v Selsky, 41 AD3d 717 [2007]; Matter of De La Cruz v Selsky, 36AD3d 907 [2007]; Matter ofRamsey v Phillips, 11 AD3d 470 [2004]; Matter of Glover v Goord, 262 AD2d483, 484 [1999]). Substantial evidence "means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind mayaccept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. vState Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]).
Here, a review of the record, including the misbehavior report, the "unusual incident" report,and the hearing testimony, reveals that there was substantial evidence to support the respondent'sdetermination that the petitioner violated prison rules. Credibility issues were resolved by thehearing officer, as the trier of fact, and we find no basis to disturb the determination (see[*2]Matter of Gilzene v McGinnis, 300 AD2d 658, 659[2002]; Matter of Ramos v Goord, 286 AD2d 392 [2001]; Matter of Rivera v Selsky,266 AD2d 295 [1999]).
There is no evidence in the record to support the petitioner's contention that the hearingofficer was biased (see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d833, 834 [1989]; Matter of Galdamez vDavis, 11 AD3d 535, 536 [2004]). Moreover, the hearing was timely concludedpursuant to valid extensions granted for the purpose of obtaining the testimony of witnessesrequested by the petitioner (see Matter of Johnson v Goord, 297 AD2d 881, 882 [2002];Matter of Mason v Goord, 271 AD2d 779, 780 [2000]; Matter of Stokes v Goord,254 AD2d 558 [1998]).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are not properly before us since they were not raisedbefore the hearing officer. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.