Opinion
January 20, 2000
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered August 20, 1998 in Greene County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.
Elvin Borrero, Auburn, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Gina M. Ciccone of counsel), Albany, for respondents.
Before: MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner, a prison inmate, challenges the determination finding him guilty of assaulting a staff member. Petitioner contends that his assistant's failure to interview a witness constituted inadequate employee assistance. Inasmuch as the witness who petitioner contends his assistant failed to interview testified at the hearing, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies (see, Matter of Faison v. Goord, 254 A.D.2d 658, appeal dismissed, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 827).
We also reject petitioner's contention that he was denied the right to call witnesses because the Hearing Officer failed to call a particular correction officer as a witness. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how this testimony was relevant (see, Matter of Nedrick v. Stinson, 263 A.D.2d 651, 693 N.Y.S.2d 680) to the alleged incident. Petitioner also failed to establish that the correction officer's testimony would offer nonredundant or material information to that evidence and testimony already received (see,Matter of Shapard v. Coombe, 245 A.D.2d 982).
Likewise, we find no merit to petitioner's contention that the missing first half of the transcript warrants an annulment of the administrative determination. Although a substantial portion of the transcript is missing, petitioner does not argue on appeal that the underlying determination is not supported by substantial evidence and, in any event, the missing testimony is not relevant to the issues before us (see, Matter of Gold v. Masse, 256 A.D.2d 981, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 803). Therefore, since the "alleged missing information is neither material to the determination nor of such significance as to preclude meaningful review", annulment is not warranted (Matter of Rodriguez v. Coughlin, 167 A.D.2d 671, 671).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.