Donhauser v. PrackDonhauser v. Prack
Proceeding pursuant to
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with provid
We confirm. The misbehavior report together with petitioner‘s admission that he authored and submitted two separate requests for law library materials under two different names constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt (see Matter of Lebron v McGinnis, 26 AD3d 658, 658 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]). To the extent that petitioner contends that he merely was attempting to assist his cellmate, as opposed to improperly obtaining more law library materials than the relevant rules permitted, this presented a credibility determination for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Diaz v Smith, 54 AD3d 1080, 1081 [2008]). Petitioner‘s remaining arguments are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Kane, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.