Majority
—Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination made at petitioner’s Tier III disciplinary hearing that petitioner violated inmate rule 108.14 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [9] [v]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964 ). Moreover, we conclude that petitioner was not deprived of his right to call witnesses; the Hearing Officer made a meaningful effort to locate and produce those witnesses (see, Matter of Salcedo v Coughlin, 197 AD2d 729 ). Finally, we reject the contention that petitioner was deprived of due process because he did not receive the employee assistant of his choice. Petitioner signed a waiver form indicating that he did not want employee assistance at his disciplinary hearing, thus expressly making a
Cases cited
- Foster v. Coughlin 76 NY2d 964 p. 970
- Jenkins v. Coughlin 190 AD2d 937 p. 971