IN RE: Duane MORRISON (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with losing state property after a suspicion-based search of his cell failed to uncover his state-issued razor.  Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge and that determination was affirmed on administrative appeal.  This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm.  The misbehavior report, which notes that “a very thorough cell search” was conducted, and confirmatory testimony from its author provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty (see Matter of Verdi v. Collado, 200 A.D.3d 1379, 1380, 160 N.Y.S.3d 416 [3d Dept 2021];  Matter of Tinker v. Bezio, 106 A.D.3d 1356, 1357, 965 N.Y.S.2d 396 [3d Dept 2013];  Matter of Crenshaw v. Fischer, 87 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 929 N.Y.S.2d 346 [3d Dept 2011] ).

We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that he was prejudiced by the omission in the misbehavior report of a conversation that the author testified he had with petitioner regarding the missing razor.  A review of the misbehavior report reflects that the information therein provided petitioner with enough particulars of the charge against him to enable him to respond and prepare a defense (see Matter of Hammock v. Keyser, 222 A.D.3d 1097, 1097, 201 N.Y.S.3d 756 [3d Dept 2023];  Matter of Ortiz v. Fischer, 91 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 935 N.Y.S.2d 914 [3d Dept 2012];  Matter of Faison v. Senkowski, 255 A.D.2d 625, 626, 679 N.Y.S.2d 480 [3d Dept 1998], appeal dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 847, 688 N.Y.S.2d 493, 710 N.E.2d 1092 [1999] ).  Furthermore, petitioner has not demonstrated any prejudice due to such omission as he was provided an opportunity at the hearing to question the author about the alleged conversation (see generally Matter of Faraldo v. Bezio, 93 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 939 N.Y.S.2d 893 [3d Dept 2012] ).  Finally, contrary to petitioner's contention, we find no error in the Hearing Officer denying petitioner's request for a witness upon a finding that any testimony regarding petitioner's possession of a razor the day after the cell search was irrelevant (see Matter of Kotler v. Goord, 17 A.D.3d 828, 829, 792 N.Y.S.2d 740 [3d Dept 2005], lv dismissed & denied 5 N.Y.3d 755, 801 N.Y.S.2d 247, 834 N.E.2d 1257 [2005];  Matter of Blanche v. Selsky, 253 A.D.2d 944, 945, 678 N.Y.S.2d 915 [3d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 817, 684 N.Y.S.2d 488, 707 N.E.2d 443 [1998] ).

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.