Opinion
May 21, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chemung County.
Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer failed to independently evaluate the reliability of the information supplied by several confidential informants and, therefore, the determination finding him guilty of various prison disciplinary rules is unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Although the Hearing Officer did not personally interview the confidential informants, the record, including the confidential transcript in which the Hearing Officer elicited detailed probative information, establishes that the Hearing Officer had an objective basis to conclude that the informants were credible and their information was reliable (see, Matter of Hodges v Coughlin, 180 A.D.2d 942; Matter of Moore v. Coughlin, 170 A.D.2d 723, 724; Matter of Harris v. Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 896, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 610, 1047).
Weiss, P.J., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.