New York Appellate Division Reports

MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. GOORD, 500457 [3d Dept 1-11-2007]
2007 NY Slip Op 00182 In the Matter of TERRENCE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner, v. GLENN GOORD, as Commissioner of Correctional
Services, Respondent. 500457. Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. Calendar Date:
November 27, 2006. Decided on January 11, 2007.

Terrence Williams, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Wayne L.
Benjamin of counsel), for respondent.



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

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with assault
on staff, violent conduct and refusing a direct order.
Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found
guilty of the charges. The determination was affirmed on
administrative appeal and this proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, the testimony of its
author and another correction officer, the unusual incident
report and the use of force report provide substantial
evidence to support the finding of guilt (see Matter of
Griffith v Selsky, 32 AD3d 595, 596 [2006]; Matter of
Larkins v Goord, 27 AD3d 810 [2006]). Petitioner’s denial
of the assault and his claim that the officers’ testimony
was inconsistent created a credibility issue for the
Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Harris v
Fletcher, 30 AD3d 948, 948 [2006]). Petitioner also
contends that he was denied the right to call witnesses. The
record reflects that the correction officer who interviewed
the inmates testified that each gave a reason why he did
not wish to testify and that he wrote their reasons on the
refusal forms. Under the circumstances, there was an
adequate explanation for the witnesses’ refusal and, as
they had not previously agreed to testify, the Hearing
Officer was not required to personally interview them (see
Matter of Hill v Selsky, 19 AD3d 64, 66-67 [2005]; Matter
of Moore v Senkowski, 13 AD3d 683, 684 [2004]; Matter of
Boyd v Selsky, 232 AD2d 929, 929-930 [1996]). Similarly, we
find nothing improper in the denial of petitioner’s request
to call 10 correction officers as witnesses, as the record
indicates that their testimony would have been irrelevant
or redundant to the testimony of the officers who did
testify (see Matter of Jiminez v Selsky, 29 AD3d 1246, 1247
[2006]; Matter of Seymour v Goord, 24 AD3d 831, 832 [2005],
lv denied 6 NY3d 711 [2006]). Finally, in light of the fact
that petitioner was repeatedly warned that further
interruptions of the Hearing Officer would result in his
removal from the hearing, we find no merit to his claim
that his removal was improper (see Matter of Acevedo v
Goord, 32 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]; Matter of Green v Goord,
32 AD3d 1076, 1077 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining
contentions have been reviewed and also found to be without

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.,

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