Opinion
April 13, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We have reviewed the record and find no support for the petitioner's claims of procedural irregularities in the conduct of the superintendent's hearings which resulted in findings of guilt of multiple charges of misbehavior, and the imposition of penalties. The petitioner was duly served with formal charges (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1, 254.3; Matter of Bennett v LeFevre, 115 A.D.2d 141), and the hearings were, in each case, timely (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1; Matter of Tracey v Coughlin, 122 A.D.2d 459; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 A.D.2d 981; People ex rel. De Fulmer v Scully, 110 A.D.2d 671, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 925; Matter of Estades v Coughlin, 101 A.D.2d 299). Furthermore, the petitioner was duly afforded the opportunity to select employee assistants from an established list (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a]), and, where he did select an assistant, the assistant performed his function by meeting with the petitioner and explaining the charges to him, and by interviewing his witnesses (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.2; Matter of Boyd v Coughlin, 105 A.D.2d 532; cf., People ex rel. Selcov v Coughlin, 98 A.D.2d 733). In the one instance where the petitioner did not receive assistance, the record supports the hearing officer's determination that the petitioner validly waived his right by intentionally selecting as his assistant the very correction officer who had filed the misbehavior report against him, and then refusing to make an alternative choice (cf., Matter of Johnakin v Racette, 111 A.D.2d 579). The petitioner was not deprived of the right to call witnesses on his behalf (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]) and, in those instances where, for reasons of security, the witnesses were not permitted to testify in his presence, he was served with an adequate written statement of reasons and was afforded the opportunity to hear tape recordings of their testimony (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [b]; Matter of Cortez v Coughlin, 67 N.Y.2d 907; Matter of Garcia v LeFevre, 64 N.Y.2d 1001; People ex rel. Bradley v Smith, 115 A.D.2d 225, appeal denied 67 N.Y.2d 604). In each instance, the determination of the hearing officer was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130; Matter of Sanders v Coughlin, 119 A.D.2d 943), and petitioner was duly served with a written statement of the evidence relied upon by the hearing officer in making his determination and the reason for the penalty imposed (see, 7 NYCRR 253.7 [c]; Matter of Gross v Henderson, 79 A.D.2d 1086, appeal denied 53 N.Y.2d 605; cf., Matter of Mallard v Dalsheim, 97 A.D.2d 545). Finally, the petitioner's appeals to the commissioner were timely decided (see, 7 NYCRR 254.8).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.