Opinion
September 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Murad, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
The contention of petitioner that the Hearing Officer improperly curtailed cross-examination of the other correction officer who signed the misbehavior report is without merit. "[A]n inmate does not have a constitutional right to cross-examine adverse witnesses at a disciplinary hearing" ( Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 119; see, Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 N.Y.2d 141, 146). The Hearing Officer properly refused to allow petitioner to read into the record portions of the Penal Law's definitions of forgery in the second degree and perjury; those definitions were not relevant to the charges in the misbehavior report ( see, Matter of Parker v. Coughlin, 211 A.D.2d 929).
The contention of petitioner that certain statements of the other correction officer who signed the misbehavior report prejudiced the Hearing Officer against petitioner is not supported by the record ( see, Matter of Parker v. Coughlin, supra; Matter of Martinez v. Scully, 194 A.D.2d 679, 680). Further, petitioner failed to object at the hearing to an alleged off-the record statement by the author of the misbehavior report.
We have considered the remaining contentions of petitioner and conclude that they are without merit.