Opinion
December 1, 1998
Petitioner's claim that he was deprived of his right to due process and a fair hearing because of witness tampering by respondents is unsupported by the record ( see, Matter of Palette v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 427, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 803). Substantial evidence, including petitioner's admission of his drug use during a taped conversation, supports the determination that petitioner possessed and ingested marihuana. No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Officer's rejection of petitioner's claim that his ingestion of marihuana was involuntary, as the Hearing Officer's determination was based upon credibility findings largely beyond our review ( see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436; see also, Matter of Harmon v. New York City Police Dept., 188 A.D.2d 429, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 652). Under the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the proven misconduct as to shock our sense of fairness.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.