Majority
—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination that he violated inmate rules 113.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [possession of contraband]) and 114.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i] [smuggling]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Mabery v Coughlin, 168 AD2d 879 , lv denied 77 NY2d 808 ; Matter of Shakoor v Coughlin, 165 AD2d 917 , 918, appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 866 ). Petitioner was not denied his right to present evidence in support of his defense; he failed to show that the documentary evidence and testimony he sought to present at the hearing were relevant to the charges against him (see, Matter of Hendricks v Scully, 206 AD2d 427 ). Further, even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies with re
Cases cited
- Hendricks v. Scully 206 AD2d 427 p. 907
- People v. Liebman 81 NY2d 834 p. 908
- Rosa v. Coombe 238 AD2d 814 p. 908
- Gardiner v. Coughlin 190 AD2d 962 at 963 p. 908