| Matter of Wallace v Prack |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02145 [93 AD3d 1056] |
| March 22, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Keith Wallace, Petitioner, v Albert Prack, asDirector of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs,Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco 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 Correctionsand Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinaryrules.
An inmate was found in his cell with cuts on his face and arm that appeared to have beeninflicted with a razor-type weapon. An investigation ensued, during which confidentialinformation was obtained implicating petitioner as the perpetrator of the attack on the inmate. Asa result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with assaulting an inmate and possessing aweapon. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing andthe determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. He then commenced this CPLR article78 proceeding.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the confidential information consideredby the Hearing Officer, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Reynoso v Fischer, 67AD3d 1166 [2009], appeal dismissed 14 NY3d 767 [2010]; Matter of Arnold v Fischer, 60 AD3d1177, 1177 [2009]). Notwithstanding petitioner's assertion to the contrary, the HearingOfficer properly ascertained the reliability of the confidential informants through conductingpersonal interviews with these individuals in camera (see Matter of Perez v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2011]; Matter of Pisano v Fischer, 87 AD3d1247, 1248 [2011]). Furthermore, we find that the misbehavior report was sufficientlydetailed to give petitioner notice of the charges to enable him to prepare a defense (see Matter of Davis v Fischer, 78AD3d 1416 [2010]; Matter of Arnold v Fischer, 60 AD3d at 1177). Contrary topetitioner's claim, the hearing transcript does not contain gaps that are so significant as topreclude meaningful review (see Matterof Piper v Bezio, 81 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2011]; Matter of Anthony v Fischer, 81 AD3d 1027, 1028 [2011]). Wehave considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for ourreview or lacking in merit.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.