Hardwick v. Coughlin

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The written misbehavior report, which describes with specificity the incident from which the charges arose, was authored by a Correction Officer who participated in the incident and co-signed by two other Correction Officers. That report constitutes substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer’s determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964 , 966; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130 , 140). Petitioner’s argument that the Hearing Officer should have more fully investigated the charges against him is without merit. The Hearing Officer is under no obligation to call the reporting officer as a witness (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 NY2d 615 , 617), nor is the Hearing Officer required to make petitioner’s case for him (Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 179 AD2d 949 ; Matter of Jackson v LeFevre, 128 AD2d 1001 , 1002). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme