Harrington v. Prack

91 A.D.3d 1244, 936 N.Y.2d 923

Opinion

We confirm. The misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Hamilton v Fischer, 84 AD3d 1614 [2011]; Matter of Malik v Bezio, 76 AD3d 1128,1128 [2010]). Petitioner’s denial of the charges and claim that the misbehavior report was fabricated presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87 AD3d 778, 779 [2011]; Matter of Cooper v Prack, 85 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2011]). Furthermore, his assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased has not been preserved for our review due to his failure to raise it in his administrative appeal (see Matter of Britt v Fischer, 54 AD3d 1087 [2008]).

Peters, J.P, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.