| Matter of Moore v New York State Dept. of CorrectionalServs. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03363 [50 AD3d 1350] |
| April 17, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher Moore, Petitioner, v New York StateDepartment of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of CorrectionalServices which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
As a result of an investigation, it was determined that petitioner had composed two letters,one unsigned and one signed with the name of petitioner's cellmate, which contained threatsagainst a correction officer. As a result, petitioner was charged with violating certain prisondisciplinary rules. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of makingthreats, engaging in conduct involving the threat of violence, engaging in unauthorizedorganizational activities, harassment, impersonation and making a false alarm. Uponadministrative appeal, the charges of engaging in unauthorized organizational activities andmaking a false alarm were dismissed and the penalty imposed was reduced. This CPLR article 78proceeding ensued.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, the hearing testimony of the correction officer whoauthored it and the offending letters, along with the sample of petitioner's handwriting, providesubstantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Agosto v Selsky, 39 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2007]; Matter of Hood v Goord, 36 AD3d1064, 1065 [2007]). Contrary [*2]to petitioner's contention,expert handwriting analysis testimony was not required as the independent assessment of thewriting samples by the Hearing Officer was sufficient (see Matter of Agosto v Selsky, 39AD3d at 1107; Matter of Hood v Goord, 36 AD3d at 1065). Petitioner's claim that he didnot write the letters presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matterof Torres v Goord, 306 AD2d 592, 593 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]).Finally, the Hearing Officer properly refused to call witnesses who had no personal knowledge ofthe incident (see Matter of Hannah vBurge, 43 AD3d 1234, 1234 [2007]; Matter of Williams v Goord, 27 AD3d 808, 809-810 [2006]).
Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim that the investigation of the incidentwas inadequate, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.