Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Green, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner was confined to a special housing unit and charged with misbehavior following an altercation with a correctional officer. He contends that he was deprived of due process of law because of inadequate assistance by the inmate assistant he selected to aid in the preparation of his defense (see, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a] [2]). The respondents do not dispute that the inmate assistant neglected to report the results of his investigation of the incident to the petitioner prior to the hearing, as required by 7 NYCRR 251-4.2. However, under the circumstances of this case, we find no violation of the petitioner's due process rights. The hearing record demonstrates that despite the inmate assistant's failure to fulfill his obligations, mainly in reporting the results of the investigation to the petitioner, the petitioner was fully able to examine all his witnesses and present his defense to the Hearing Officer (cf. People ex rel. Selcov v Coughlin, 98 A.D.2d 733; Matter of Mallard v Dalsheim, 97 A.D.2d 545). Furthermore, we note that the petitioner raised no objection at the hearing with regard to the performance of his inmate assistant and was not prejudiced by the testimony presented on his behalf (see, Matter of Humphries v Coughlin, 112 A.D.2d 561). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.