| Matter of Tirado v Goord |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03350 [50 AD3d 1332] |
| April 17, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Miguel Tirado, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hard, J.), entered July 11, 2007 in AlbanyCounty, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, toreview a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prisondisciplinary rules.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violent conduct,creating a disturbance, assaulting staff, interfering with an employee and refusing a direct order.Upon administrative appeal, the determination was affirmed, with a reduced penalty. Petitionerthen commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Courtdismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. The record reflects that petitioner was afforded meaningful employee assistance.Although petitioner claims that his employee assistance was inadequate because the assistantfailed to interview or locate certain inmate witnesses, petitioner first requested those witnesses atthe hearing and was not able to identify them. Nevertheless, the Hearing Officer adjourned thehearing so that the assistant could investigate petitioner's request. Accordingly, any allegeddeficiency was remedied and there is no evidence that petitioner was prejudiced in any way (see Matter of Amaker v Selsky, 43AD3d 547, 547-548 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]; Matter of Rosa v Goord, 14 AD3d747, 748 [2005]). Finally, although the Hearing [*2]Officerdid not provide a written explanation for his refusal to allow testimony from the correctionofficers that escorted petitioner to the infirmary, the record reveals that such testimony wouldhave been irrelevant as those individuals lacked personal knowledge of the incident (see Matter of Hannah v Burge, 43AD3d 1234 [2007]; Matter of Daum v Goord, 274 AD2d 715, 716 [2000]).
Petitioner's remaining claims were not properly preserved for our review (see Matter of Pigmentel v Selsky, 19AD3d 816, 817 [2005]).
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.