MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from refusing to obey a direct order after he was charged with having refused to comply with a correction officer's orders to enter his newly-assigned cell. We find that the misbehavior report, prepared by the officer who witnessed the charged misconduct, was sufficiently detailed and probative to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt, especially when viewed with petitioner's own statements (see Matter of Rashid v. Ketchum, 247 A.D.2d 670, 671; Matter of Guerrero v. Coombe, 239 A.D.2d 676). Hence, the determination under review will not be disturbed.
Petitioner contends that any failure to obey the officer's orders was justified on the ground that he had been assigned to a shared cell which ran counter to his understanding that he is not eligible for double-bunking. It is well settled, however, that inmates are not permitted "to decide for themselves which orders to obey and which to ignore" (Matter of Rivera v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 501, 516). To avoid sanctions, an inmate must comply with a direct order, even if he or she perceives it to be improper (see Matter of Thompson v. Selsky, 289 A.D.2d 809). Redress may be sought thereafter through the grievance procedure established by the Department of Correctional Services (see Matter of Walker v. Senkowski, 294 A.D.2d 635). The remaining issues raised by petitioner have been examined and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.