IN RE: Charles WILLIAMS (2006)

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 the Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Correction officers intercepted three envelopes written by petitioner containing the return address of another inmate that had been submitted for processing as legal mail.   The contents revealed that petitioner was doing legal work for another inmate.   He was charged in a misbehavior report with violating facility correspondence procedures and providing unauthorized legal assistance.   Petitioner was found guilty of the charges following a tier II disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal.   This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

 We confirm.   At the hearing, petitioner admitted that he prepared legal documentation for another inmate, who was apparently illiterate, without receiving authorization from correction officials.   This, together with the misbehavior report, the testimony of the senior mail clerk and the documentation depicting petitioner's handwriting, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Green v. Senkowski, 269 A.D.2d 653, 653, 702 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 752, 711 N.Y.S.2d 154, 733 N.E.2d 226 [2000];  Matter of Ellis v. Coombe, 253 A.D.2d 945, 945, 679 N.Y.S.2d 714 [1998] ).   Inasmuch as the Hearing Officer prepared the written disposition at the hearing and read it on the record in petitioner's presence, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from any delay in receiving the written determination (see 7 NYCRR 252.5;  Matter of Johnson v. Goord, 297 A.D.2d 881, 882, 747 N.Y.S.2d 604 [2002] ).   We also reject petitioner's assertion that he was improperly denied the right to call as a witness a correction counselor familiar with the other inmate's illiteracy since the counselor did not have personal knowledge of the incident in question and would not have offered testimony relevant to the charges at issue (see Matter of Murray v. Goord, 273 A.D.2d 558, 559, 709 N.Y.S.2d 662 [2000];  Matter of Madison v. Goord, 273 A.D.2d 557, 558, 709 N.Y.S.2d 663 [2000] ).   Furthermore, upon reviewing the record, we do not find that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Moore v. Goord, 16 A.D.3d 800, 800, 790 N.Y.S.2d 772 [2005] ).   Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and are lacking in merit.

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