Opinion
September 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.).
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of failing to obey a directive to move to a different cell. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the fact that the correction officer who served petitioner with the misbehavior report did not sign or date it does not render the misbehavior report defective. Such error was harmless, especially in view of the fact that the record establishes that petitioner received a copy of the misbehavior report and that the misbehavior report adequately apprised him of the charges against him ( see generally, Matter of Ray v. Coughlin, 226 A.D.2d 846; Matter of Smith v. Coughlin, 170 A.D.2d 845). Furthermore, we find no merit to petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer improperly denied his request to call three mitigating witnesses in violation of his due process rights. The potential witnesses were not present at the time of the incident and, therefore, had no direct knowledge of the facts ( see, Matter of Barreto v. Goord, 244 A.D.2d 610, 611). Moreover, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the testimony of the three witnesses would be relevant to the charge against him ( see, id.).
Cardona, P.J. Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.