After a tier III Superintendent's hearing, petitioner was found guilty of assault and conspiracy for his involvement in the death of another inmate. In arriving at his determination, the Hearing Officer relied on in camera testimony, reports of correction officers who interviewed the informants, and several written statements by the informants themselves which were relevant, probative and quite detailed. Under the circumstances, the record contained sufficient material to enable the Hearing Officer to assess the informants' credibility and the reliability of their information even though he did not conduct independent interviews with the confidential informants (see, Matter of Santiago v Hoke, 183 A.D.2d 978, 979, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 757; Matter of Moore v Coughlin, 170 A.D.2d 723; Matter of Gibson v LeFevre, 133 A.D.2d 978, 980; cf., Matter of Wynter v Jones, 135 A.D.2d 1032). This information, coupled with the testimony taken at the hearing, constituted substantial evidence to find petitioner guilty of conspiracy (see, 7 NYCRR 270.3 [b]; Matter of Moore v Coughlin, supra, at 724; Matter of Diaz v Coughlin, 134 A.D.2d 668, 669). Furthermore, there is no merit to petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report failed to provide him with adequate notice of the charges against him (see, Matter of Morales v Senkowski, 165 A.D.2d 393, 395; see also, Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 173 A.D.2d 1039; Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe, 105 A.D.2d 913, affd 66 N.Y.2d 835) or that he was denied adequate employee assistance (see, Matter of Santiago v Hoke, supra, at 980).
Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.