IN RE: Darrell JOHNSON (2009)

 Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) revoking his release to parole supervision based upon his violation of the conditions of parole.  “[A] determination to revoke parole will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence [that], if credited, would support such determination” (Matter of Layne v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 256 A.D.2d 990, 992, 684 N.Y.S.2d 4, lv. dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 886, 689 N.Y.S.2d 427, 711 N.E.2d 641, rearg. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1000, 695 N.Y.S.2d 746, 717 N.E.2d 1083).   Here, we conclude that the testimony of the witnesses at the parole revocation hearing, including petitioner's counselor in the high impact incarceration program, provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determination (see Matter of Solano v. Mazzuca, 38 A.D.3d 789, 790, 832 N.Y.S.2d 282;  Matter of Prodromidis v. McCoy, 292 A.D.2d 769, 738 N.Y.S.2d 630;  see also People ex rel. Fryer v. Beaver, 292 A.D.2d 876, 740 N.Y.S.2d 174).   The testimony of petitioner that he did not threaten the parole officer merely presented a credibility issue that the ALJ was entitled to resolve against petitioner (see Matter of Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, 23 A.D.3d 800, 803 N.Y.S.2d 320;  Matter of Ciccarelli v. New York State Div. of Parole, 11 A.D.3d 843, 844, 784 N.Y.S.2d 173).

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: