Majority
Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 116.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [17] [ii] [tampering with personal property without authorization]) is supported by substantial evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130 , 139). The misbehavior report specifies that the security tape was broken on the television in petitioner’s cell. The testimony of petitioner that the tape was perfect when he received the television a month before and that he did not break the tape presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964 , 966).
Respondent concedes that the determination that petitioner
Cases cited
- People ex rel. Vega v. Smith 66 NY2d 130 at 139 p. 1045
- Foster v. Coughlin 76 NY2d 964 at 966 p. 1045
- Brooks v. Coughlin 182 AD2d 1115 at 1116 p. 1046