TROUTMAN v. GOORD (1999)

 Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating inmate rules 104.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][5][ii] [engaging in conduct that is violent or that threatens violence] );  102.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][3] [i] [making threats] );  and 107.11 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][8][ii] [harassing employees] ).   We reject petitioner's contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.   A detailed misbehavior report setting forth the reporting officer's observations constitutes substantial evidence of the misconduct described therein (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477;  Matter of Perez v. Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 616-617, 499 N.Y.S.2d 659, 490 N.E.2d 526).   Petitioner's denials before the Hearing Officer presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, supra, at 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477;  Matter of Polite v. Goord, 258 A.D.2d 795, 684 N.Y.S.2d 445).

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: