IN RE: Clifford GRAHAM (2007)

 Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul the determination revoking his postrelease supervision and imposing a time assessment of 36 months.   Contrary to petitioner's contention, Supreme Court properly transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) inasmuch as the challenged determination was “made as a result of a hearing held ․ pursuant to direction by law” (CPLR 7803[4];  see generally Matter of Bevacqua v. Sobol, 176 A.D.2d 1, 3-4, 579 N.Y.S.2d 243).  “ ‘[A] determination to revoke parole [or postrelease supervision] will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such determination’ ” (Matter of Mosley v. Dennison, 30 A.D.3d 975, 976, 816 N.Y.S.2d 789, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 712, 824 N.Y.S.2d 603, 857 N.E.2d 1134).   Contrary to petitioner's contention, the record establishes that, in the related criminal proceeding, the court refused to suppress the testimony concerning the presence of a handgun in the vehicle in which petitioner was a passenger and petitioner's statement admitting ownership of that handgun, and that testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination (see id.;   cf. People ex rel. Piccarillo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 76, 81-83, 421 N.Y.S.2d 842, 397 N.E.2d 354;  see generally People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997).   Finally, we reject the contention of petitioner that, pursuant to 9 NYCRR 8005.20(c)(1), his time assessment cannot exceed 15 months.   That regulation sets forth only the minimum time assessment, and petitioner is eligible for a maximum time assessment of “ up to the balance of the remaining period of post-release supervision” (Penal Law § 70.45[1] ).

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

MEMORANDUM: