Houston v. FischerHouston v. Fischer
We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of its author, the documentary evidence and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Smith v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1061, 1061-1062 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]). Although petitioner denied selling marihuana and claimed at the hearing, as he did during the investigation, that the money he received was sent from friends of his brother, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Frazier v Prack, 62 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2009]). Contrary to petitioner‘s contention, the fact that he was not found in possession of marihuana does not require annulment of the determination, as sufficient circumstantial evidence supporting the charges was presented
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.