Opinion
April 15, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that his Tier III hearing was not completed in a timely fashion. Although the hearing was not completed within 14 days following the writing of the misbehavior report (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]), it was commenced within that time limit and an extension was properly authorized by the Commissioner's designee (see, Matter of Comfort v Irvin, 197 A.D.2d 907, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 662; Matter of Graham v Henderson, 158 A.D.2d 911). Petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report was actually written on a date earlier than the date set forth on the report presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. The Hearing Officer was entitled to credit the charging officer's testimony that the report was written on the same day that it was dated. In any event, the 14-day time limit is directory only (see, Matter of Comfort v Irvin, supra).
We have reviewed the remaining contentions of petitioner and find each one to be lacking in merit.