Opinion
March 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Respondents' determination that petitioner was guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules 1.00 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [A]; violation of Penal Law), 113.12 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [iii]; conspiracy to sell controlled substances) and 114.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i]; smuggling) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Perez v. Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615). The misbehavior report and the testimony of Correction Officer Dunleavy were "sufficiently relevant and probative to support the findings of the hearing officer" (Matter of Perez v. Wilmot, supra, at 616-617). There is no merit to petitioner's contentions regarding either the sufficiency of the misbehavior report (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 [c] [1]; Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 173 A.D.2d 1039, 1040; Matter of Vogelsang v. Coombe, 105 A.D.2d 913, 914, affd 66 N.Y.2d 835) or his claimed denial of the right to conduct a proper defense.
Finally, contrary to petitioner's argument, the Superintendent's decision to revoke the visitation privileges of petitioner's wife was independent of the Tier III Superintendent's hearing and was not a part of respondents' determination now challenged (see, Matter of Inman v. Coughlin, 156 A.D.2d 786, 787).