State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 13, 2014 518392 

________________________________

In the Matter of RANDALL

BEASLEY,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

D. VENETTOZZI, as Acting 

Director of Special 

Housing and Inmate 

Disciplinary Programs,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 16, 2014

Before: Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________

Randall Beasley, Pine City, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.

After an inmate was stabbed several times and petitioner

was identified as his assailant, petitioner was charged in a

misbehavior report with assaulting an inmate, possession of a

weapon, engaging in violent conduct and disturbing the order of a

facility. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was

found guilty as charged and a penalty of, among others things, 18

months in the special housing unit was imposed. The

determination was upheld on administrative appeal, with a later
-2- 518392 

reduction in the penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding

ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of its

author to whom the victim identified petitioner as his assailant,

confidential testimony and testimony of the sergeant who

investigated the assault and observed scratches on petitioner

consistent with an altercation provide substantial evidence of

petitioner's guilt of the charges. Petitioner's denial that he

had any role in the assault and his claim that other inmates

could have committed it or that the victim's injuries were self

inflicted, as well as the testimony of other inmates that they

did not see petitioner enter the victim's cell or commit the

assault, created credibility questions for the Hearing Officer to

resolve (see Matter of Espinal v Fischer, 114 AD3d 978, 979

[2014]). Contrary to his contentions, petitioner was advised

that confidential testimony had been taken and he was not

entitled to disclosure of the confidential information (see

Matter of McDuffy v Fischer, 107 AD3d 1190, 1190 [2013]). 

Further, the Hearing Officer's in camera questioning of the

correction sergeant who interviewed the confidential witness

"allowed him to independently assess the reliability and

credibility of the confidential information" (Matter of McCain v

Fischer, 104 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2013]; see Matter of Howard v

Prack, 107 AD3d 1262, 1263 [2013]). To the extent that

petitioner claims that he was denied the right to call the victim

as a witness, this claim lacks merit. Petitioner was advised

that the victim had signed a witness refusal form and would not

provide a reason, as a correction officer who questioned the

victim testified; petitioner did not request that the Hearing

Officer inquire further or request the refusal form, nor did he

raise this issue on administrative appeal so as to preserve if

for review (see Matter of Taylor v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1298, 1299

[2011]). Petitioner's remaining claims have been reviewed and

determined to lack merit.

Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.
-3- 518392 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court