Opinion
139
March 15, 2002.
CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered August 31, 2001, to annul a determination revoking petitioner's parole.
John Prodromidis, petitioner pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., PINE, KEHOE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum:
Petitioner commenced this proceeding to annul a determination revoking his parole based upon his failure to complete an aftercare drug program that was mandated as a condition of parole. The determination is supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Westcott v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 256 A.D.2d 1179, 1180), including relevant and probative hearsay properly received in evidence and relied upon by the Administrative Law Judge ( see, 9 NYCRR 8005.2 [a]; People ex rel. McGee v. Walters, 62 N.Y.2d 317, 319; People ex rel. Wilt v. Meloni, 170 A.D.2d 989, lv dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 973; People ex rel. Saafir v. Mantello, 163 A.D.2d 824, 825). We reject the contention that petitioner was denied his right to confront a witness against him ( see, People ex rel. Martin v. Warden, Ossining Correctional Facility, 133 A.D.2d 134, 135; cf., Matter of Layne v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 256 A.D.2d 990, 991, lv dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 886, rearg denied 93 N.Y.2d 1000; Matter of Velez v. New York State Div. of Parole, 246 A.D.2d 833, 834, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 813). The final hearing was conducted in a timely manner, taking into account adjournments granted at the request of petitioner's counsel ( see, Executive Law § 259-i [f] [i]; 9 NYCRR 8005.17 [c] [3]; People ex rel. Cortez v. Travis, 275 A.D.2d 1021, 1021-1022; People ex rel. Speed v. Netzel, 225 A.D.2d 1087, 1088; People ex rel. Walker v. Richardson, 174 A.D.2d 1061).
Petitioner's remaining contention is unpreserved for our review ( see, Matter of Williams v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 277 A.D.2d 617) and in any event lacks merit ( see, People ex rel. Lee v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 165 A.D.2d 959, 960-961).