Opinion
November 15, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.
The Hearing Officer personally interviewed the confidential informant and the in camera testimony before us sufficiently establishes petitioner's guilt and the need to protect the informant's identity (see, Matter of McClean v. LeFevre, 142 A.D.2d 911). Petitioner was also properly informed that an informant's statement was being taken and that his safety could be jeopardized by disclosure of his identity (see, supra). The record also contained sufficient material to enable the Hearing Officer to assess the informant's credibility and the reliability of his information (see, Matter of Harris v. Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 896, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 610, 1047). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit.
Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.