Opinion
March 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We conclude that respondents' determination is supported by substantial evidence. The transcripts of the Hearing Officer's interviews of the confidential informants, submitted to us for our in camera review, substantiate the detailed charges in the misbehavior report and the record shows that the Hearing Officer "had a basis from which to make his own independent assessment of the confidential informant[s'] credibility" (Matter of Machado v. Leonardo, 180 A.D.2d 936, 937; see, Matter of Cappello v. Coughlin, 178 A.D.2d 1026, 1027; cf., Matter of Gaston v. Coughlin, 182 A.D.2d 1085; Matter of Carter v. Kelly, 159 A.D.2d 1006, 1008). Petitioner's contention that he was entitled to prehearing notice that the Hearing Officer would consider confidential evidence in reaching his determination lacks merit. The Hearing Officer gave petitioner reasons why that evidence could not be disclosed (see, Matter of Boyd v Coughlin, 105 A.D.2d 532, 533) and the reasons given find support in the record (see, Matter of Odom v. Kelly, 152 A.D.2d 1010, 1011).