| Matter of Nova v Selsky |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06515 [54 AD3d 453] |
| August 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Juan Nova, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Directorof Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff 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 a prison disciplinary rule.
According to information provided by a confidential informant, petitioner was observedparticipating in the assault of another inmate, where that inmate was, among other things, stabbedin the neck. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assault on an inmateand possession of a weapon. A tier III disciplinary hearing ensued, at the conclusion of whichpetitioner was found guilty of the assault charge and not guilty of the weapon possession charge.That determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal, prompting petitioner to commencethis CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment.
We confirm. The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the form ofthe misbehavior report and testimony adduced at the hearing, including the confidentialtestimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera (see Matter of Jackson v McGinnis, 47 AD3d 1100, 1100-1101[2008]). Regarding petitioner's assertion that the misbehavior report was defectively vague, wefind that the report as a whole gave petitioner adequate notice of the nature of the charges againsthim such that he was afforded the opportunity to prepare a defense (see Matter of Abdul-Khaliq v Goord,34 AD3d 872, 872 [2006]). We find similarly unavailing [*2]petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer failed to make anindependent assessment of the confidential informant's reliability inasmuch as the record revealsthat the Hearing Officer personally interviewed the informant (see Matter of Morillo v Goord, 38AD3d 947, 947 [2007]). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and foundto be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinationis confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.