| Matter of Reyes v Leclaire |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02849 [49 AD3d 884] |
| March 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard Reyes, Petitioner, v Lucian F.Leclaire, Jr., Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and PatrickJ. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent ofthe Great Meadow Correctional Facility, dated June 15, 2006, which confirmed a determinationof a Hearing Officer dated February 24, 2006, made after a tier III disciplinary hearing, findingthe petitioner guilty of violating prison rules and imposing a penalty.
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 determination, the court must decide whether thedetermination was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ramsey v Phillips,11 AD3d 470 [2004]; Matter of Glover v Goord, 262 AD2d 483 [1999]). Here, areview of the record, including the misbehavior report and the testimony of Correction OfficerMiller, reveals that there was substantial evidence to support the respondent's determination thatthe petitioner violated prison rules. The credibility issues were resolved by the Hearing Officer asthe trier of fact and we perceive no basis upon which to disturb his determination (see Matterof Gilzene v McGinnis, 300 AD2d 658 [2002]; Matter of Ramos v Goord, 286 AD2d392 [2001]; Matter of Rivera v Selsky, 266 AD2d 295 [1999]).
The petitioner contends that the hearing was unfair in that he was denied an opportunity topresent evidence of a previous involuntary protective custody (hereinafter IPC) report filedagainst him. However, the prior IPC report was irrelevant since the petitioner failed to [*2]demonstrate how the document had any bearing on this case. Thus,it was properly excluded by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Caraway v Herbert, 285AD2d 778, 779 [2001]).
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Hearing Officer was biased against him. Therecord demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that thedetermination was not the result of any bias on the part of the Hearing Officer (see Matter ofGriffin v Goord, 43 AD3d 591, 592 [2007]; Matter of Cayenne v Goord, 16 AD3d782, 783-784 [2005]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.