Opinion
Decided and Entered: May 25, 2000.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review six determinations of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Jonathan Johnson, Malone, petitioner in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary of counsel), Albany, for respondents.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in six misbehavior reports with violating numerous prison disciplinary rules as the result of six separate incidents which occurred between July 1998 and September 1998. Petitioner was found guilty of all charges following separate disciplinary hearings on each misbehavior report and, after unsuccessful administrative appeals, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determinations. Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court and we confirm.
Initially, petitioner contends that several of the determinations are not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. In each of the determinations challenged on substantial evidence grounds, the misbehavior report, either alone or in combination with the hearing testimony, was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Jaime v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 823; Matter of Figueroa v. Lacy, 260 A.D.2d 766; Matter of Mays v. Goord, 243 A.D.2d 882). To the extent that petitioner denied the charged conduct or provided an exculpatory version of events, this presented issues of credibility which the Hearing Officer was entitled to resolve against him (see,Matter of Torres v. Goord, ___ A.D.2d ___, ___, 700 N.Y.S.2d 280, 281;Matter of Bell v. Couture, ___ A.D.2d ___, ___, 699 N.Y.S.2d 757, 758).
Turning to petitioner's procedural arguments, the fifth misbehavior report was not defective by virtue of the alleged inconsistency between the incident location and petitioner's cell location inasmuch as any claimed confusion over the discrepancy was sufficiently explained at the hearing (see, Matter of Smart v. Goord, 266 A.D.2d 606). Moreover, petitioner waived his contention that two of the disciplinary hearings were improperly held in his absence by refusing to attend the hearings and executing a waiver form to that effect (see, Matter of Cowart v. Pico, 213 A.D.2d 853, 855, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 812; Matter of Watson v. Coughlin, 132 A.D.2d 831, 832, affd 72 N.Y.2d 965). Finally, the record contains no support for petitioner's claims that certain Hearing Officers were biased (see, Matter of Omaro v. Goord, ___ A.D.2d ___, 701 N.Y.S.2d 923) and that one of the misbehavior reports was written in retaliation for a complaint he filed against the correction officer who authored it (see, Matter of Mays v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 610, 611). We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determinations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.