The requirement of CPLR 7803 (4) that a decision of an agency be supported by "substantial evidence" applies to all proceedings reviewable under article 78 including prison and jail proceedings that concern both security and discipline. ( Matter of Blake v. Mann, 75 NY2d 742, 743; People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139; Matter of Potts v. New York City Dept. of Correction, 280 AD2d 329 [1st Dept 2001]; Matter of Robinson v. Leonardo, 179 AD2d 951, 952-953 [3d Dept 1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 759; Matter of Kalonji v. Coughlin, 157 AD2d 941, 942 [3d Dept 1990]; see also Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 NY2d 113; Matter of Bryant v. Coughlin, 77 NY2d 642.) Many judicial decisions discuss whether "substantial evidence" supports the finding that is being reviewed under CPLR 7803 (4).
Decided May 7, 1992 Appeal from (3d Dept: 179 A.D.2d 951) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED
Contrary to petitioners argument, the Hearing Officer did not err in finding the confidential information credible and reliable. Our own in camera review of this evidence reveals precisely the detailed and specific information sufficient to form an objective basis for the Hearing Officer's determination that reliable and credible information existed to support the administrative segregation recommendation ( see, Matter of Robinson v. Leonardo, 179 A.D.2d 951, 953, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 759; see also, Matter of Scott v. Coombe, 228 A.D.2d 996, 997, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 801).
Lastly, we are unpersuaded that the issues raised herein merit review despite the finding of mootness (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715). That administrative segregation decisions are subject to review in accordance with a substantial evidence standard is well established (see, e.g., Matter of Robinson v. Leonardo, 179 A.D.2d 951, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 759), and hence does not present a novel issue, and the question of whether that standard has been met in any particular case requires a "fact-sensitive inquiry" (Matter of Schulz v. Lake George Park Commn., 180 A.D.2d 852, 854), such that any determination made herein would not necessarily be applicable to a future controversy. Moreover, we are not convinced that there is, in fact, a likelihood — as opposed to mere possibility — that the peculiar circumstances that prompted respondents' determination will recur (compare, People ex rel. Leonard HH. v. Nixon, 148 A.D.2d 75, 78; see also, Matter of Amnesty Am. v. Jackson, 202 A.D.2d 416).
The hearing was held to determine whether petitioner should be administratively segregated for reasons of prison security (see, Matter of Bryant v. Mann, supra, at 1089). We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Robinson v. Leonardo, 179 A.D.2d 951, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 759).
Petitioner emphasizes that the Hearing Officer did not personally interview any of the informants. This is so, but a personal interview is not required (see, Matter of Harris v. Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 896, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1047). What is required is that the record contain sufficient material to enable the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of the informant and reliability of the information provided (Matter of Robinson v. Leonardo, 179 A.D.2d 951, 953, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 759). There must be an objective basis for the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the informants are believable (Matter of Franklin v. Hoke, 174 A.D.2d 908) and our in camera review of the confidential information reveals the requisite detailed, specific and corroborative evidence to enable the Hearing Officer to make an independent determination of credibility and reliability (see, Matter of Holley v. Coughlin, 187 A.D.2d 865; Matter of Lopez v. Lacy, 184 A.D.2d 819), which he did. Petitioner's contention that pressure tactics of the State Police during inmate interviews cast doubt on the statements of the informants presented a credibility issue which the Hearing Officer reasonably resolved against petitioner (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966). The threshold requirement having been satisfied, the confidential information unquestionably supports the determination.