PEOPLE PETERS v. WALKER (1999)

 Supreme Court properly denied the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.   The toxicology report was improperly admitted in evidence because the Hearing Officer did not determine that it was reliable, nor did he state his reason for dispensing with the need to produce a witness to testify regarding its contents (see, People ex rel. McGee v. Walters, 62 N.Y.2d 317, 322-323, 476 N.Y.S.2d 803, 465 N.E.2d 342;  cf., People ex rel. Wilt v. Meloni, 170 A.D.2d 989, 990, 565 N.Y.S.2d 669, lv. dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 973, 571 N.Y.S.2d 905, 575 N.E.2d 391).   The remaining evidence, however, was sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that relator violated a condition of parole that he not consume alcohol (see, Matter of Hilbourne v. Rodriguez, 155 A.D.2d 917, 918, 547 N.Y.S.2d 740;  Executive Law § 259-i[3] [f] [viii];  9 NYCRR 8005.20).   The contention of relator that he was denied due process because the Board of Parole did not have a complete transcript of the revocation hearing lacks merit.   There is no requirement that the Board of Parole review the transcript of the revocation hearing before making its final decision (see, People ex rel. Smith v. Mantello, 167 A.D.2d 912, 561 N.Y.S.2d 866).   Finally, the Hearing Officer set forth his reasons for recommending that relator complete the maximum term of his sentence, and there is no basis to conclude that the disposition is excessive (see, People ex rel. Smith v. Mantello, supra ).

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: