Opinion
December 22, 1997
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The respondent acted within its authority to order a rehearing upon the petitioner's request for a reconsideration of the original determination ( see, Matter of Dawes v. Coughlin, 83 N.Y.2d 597; Matter of Brown v. Coughlin, 214 A.D.2d 874).
In reaching its determination that the petitioner violated prison rule 108.13 by possessing escape paraphernalia ( see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [9] [iv]), the respondent relied upon, among other things, misbehavior reports; the testimony of the officers who prepared the reports; the documents found in the petitioner's possession, including a map and escape plan; and confidential testimony. Upon our review of the record, including the confidential testimony, we find that the respondent's determination was supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Bryant v. Coughlin, 77 N.Y.2d 642, 647; People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130; Matter of James v. Strack, 214 A.D.2d 674).
The petitioner was not deprived of his right to call a witness where that witness refused, at the hearing, to testify and a Refusal to Testify form was signed and a reason provided ( see, Matter of Laureano v. Kuhlmann, 75 N.Y.2d 141; cf., Matter of Hynes v. Scully, 203 A.D.2d 462; Matter of Afrika v. Selsky, 199 A.D.2d 315).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit ( see, Matter of Laureano v. Kuhlman, supra; Matter of Pinargote v. Berry, 147 A.D.2d 746) or do not warrant annulment of the determination ( cf., Matter of Porter v. Cuomo, 191 A.D.2d 852; Matter of Morales v. Senkowski, 165 A.D.2d 393).
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.