Opinion
April 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Clinton County.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, hearsay misbehavior reports can constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt as long as the evidence has sufficient relevance and probative value (see, Matter of Burgos v Coughlin, 108 A.D.2d 194, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 603). Here, while the incident was not witnessed by the correction officer who wrote the misbehavior report, the report sets forth the account of the incident and the victim's identification of petitioner as his assailant (see, Matter of De Torres v Coughlin, 135 A.D.2d 1068, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 801). The details of the incident set forth in the report were sufficiently specific as to time and place and persons involved to satisfy the requirements of substantial evidence (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 156 A.D.2d 806, affd 76 N.Y.2d 964). Although the victim later denied that he had been assaulted or that he ever identified petitioner as his assailant, this raised a question of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of De Torres v Coughlin, supra).
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.