We reject petitioner's contention that the determination finding him guilty of extortion is not supported by substantial evidence. The Hearing Officer personally interviewed the confidential informant, and the information provided by the informant was sufficiently detailed and corroborated by evidence gathered by a correction officer in investigating the incident in question to allow the Hearing Officer to assess the credibility of the informant and form a basis for the finding of guilt (see, Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 173 A.D.2d 1039; Matter of Rentas v Coughlin, 167 A.D.2d 686). Further, petitioner was told that the informant's identity and information would not be revealed because of safety considerations, and our review of the confidential information supports that decision (see, Matter of Rentas v Coughlin, supra; Matter of Pinargote v Berry, 147 A.D.2d 746, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 606; Matter of McClean v LeFevre, 142 A.D.2d 911).
Weiss, P.J., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.