Matter of Maddox v Fischer

Matter of Maddox v Fischer 2013 NY Slip Op 02624 Decided on April 18, 2013 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: April 18, 2013
514678

[*1]In the Matter of BRUCE MADDOX, Petitioner,

v

BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: February 25, 2013
Before: Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ.


Bruce Maddox, Coxsackie, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany
(Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After food was discovered hidden among cardboard that petitioner had removed from the commissary, he was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting smuggling, theft of state property, and the possession of both contraband and stolen property. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty as charged. Petitioner's administrative appeal was unsuccessful, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.[FN1]

Petitioner first argues that the Hearing Officer was unable to properly assess the credibility of a confidential informant, but the Hearing Officer personally interviewed the [*2]informant and was fully capable of doing so (see Matter of Bonnemere v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2012]). Next, legitimate considerations of institutional safety further justified the denial of his request to review various confidential evidence (see Matter of Torres v Goord, 261 AD2d 759, 759-760 [1999]). Petitioner's remaining contention is unpreserved for our review and, in any event, is without merit.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Footnotes

Footnote 1: To the extent that petitioner raised a substantial evidence question in his petition, he has abandoned that issue by failing to address it in his brief (see Matter of Land v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1170, 1170 [2012]).