Opinion
August 29, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Washington County.
Petitioner's confinement in the special housing unit was not due to the filing of the second misbehavior report; he was already in such confinement due to the filing of the first misbehavior report. Accordingly, the requirement that his disciplinary hearing on the second charge be commenced within seven days of his confinement was not applicable (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; Matter of Maldonado v Coughlin, 150 A.D.2d 692) and compliance with the 14-day time period set forth in 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (b) was required. Here, the hearing was completed within 10 days of the filing of the second misbehavior report and was therefore timely (see, Matter of Young v Coughlin, 144 A.D.2d 753, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 625). Furthermore, the misbehavior report, coupled with the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report as well as the testimony of other witnesses at the hearing, provided substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 156 A.D.2d 806, affd 76 N.Y.2d 964; Matter of Garcia v Coughlin, 153 A.D.2d 1000). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected.
Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.