Opinion
October 15, 1998
Based in part upon confidential information, petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit extortion and threatening violence against an inmate. Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer's refusal to permit him to review the confidential information denied him the right to call witnesses and receive documentary evidence. We disagree. The Hearing Officer determined that disclosing the confidential information would jeopardize the safety of the informant. Petitioner was nevertheless permitted to ask questions regarding the confidential testimony provided that the identity of the confidential source was not disclosed. Contrary to petitioner's contention, he had no right to confront and cross-examine the confidential informant ( see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 119; Matter of Breland v. Senkowski, 168 A.D.2d 751, 752), notwithstanding the fact that he alleged to know the informant's identity. To the extent that petitioner's remaining challenges to the determination of his guilt are discernable, they have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Although petitioner asserted in his petition that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence, requiring that the proceeding to be transferred to this Court, he has now abandoned that issue ( see, Matter of Vasquez v. Coombe, 225 A.D.2d 925).
Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.