Opinion
July 3, 1997
Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
The contention of petitioner that the rehearing was improper is without merit. The procedural defect in the first hearing was discovered before a final determination was rendered ( see, Matter of Dawes v. Selsky, 233 A.D.2d 598; Matter of Brodie v. Selsky, 203 A.D.2d 671, 672; Matter of Murray v. Scully, 170 A.D.2d 829, 831, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 856; Matter of Silva v. Scully, 168 A.D.2d 452).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. The misbehavior report, the testimony of the investigator who authored the misbehavior report, and the information from the confidential source, which the Hearing Officer found to be reliable and credible, is "`the kind of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in serious affairs'" ( People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139, quoting National Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, 94 F.2d 862, 873, cert denied 304 U.S. 576).
Petitioner received meaningful assistance from the employee assistant ( see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.2; Matter of Crandall v. Coughlin, 219 A.D.2d 823; Matter of Chisholm v. Irvin, 209 A.D.2d 1027, lv dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 1027). Petitioner's contention "that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from such bias" is unsupported by the record ( Matter of Parker v. Coughlin, 211 A.D.2d 929; see, Matter of Martinez v Scully, 194 A.D.2d 679).
Petitioner's conditional right to call witnesses ( see, 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]) was not violated by the refusal of the Hearing Officer to call a witness requested by petitioner. The Hearing Officer properly determined that the testimony would not have been relevant ( see, Matter of Fletcher v. Selsky, 199 A.D.2d 865, 866, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 753; Matter of Nieves v. Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 943, 944).
The contention of petitioner that the Becton-Dickinson test kit E results are invalid because the tests were not conducted by a licensed chemist is without merit. There is no such requirement. The regulations provide only that the "individual performing the test shall have been appropriately trained in the use of the testing materials", and the record establishes that the investigator performing the test here was so trained ( 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [f]; see generally, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 140-141). Nor does the record support petitioner's contention that the form for the Request for Test of Suspected Contraband Drugs ( see, 7 NYCRR 1010.4 [h]) was not properly completed.
We have reviewed the remaining contentions of petitioner and conclude that they are without merit. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J.)