Petitioner's contention that the determination finding him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules must be annulled because of the failure of the Hearing Officer to disclose the identity of a confidential informant is without merit. In light of the other circumstantial and direct evidence of petitioner's guilt, including testimony by the victim of the assault identifying petitioner as the assailant, any failure to identify the informant or to give adequate reasons for not doing so is harmless (see, Matter of Boyd v Coughlin, 105 A.D.2d 532). Similarly, because the determination here was not based solely upon evidence from a confidential informant who did not appear at the hearing, any failure to ascertain the reliability and credibility of the informant does not require annulment (cf., Matter of Siders v Le Fevre, 145 A.D.2d 874). In addition, given the seriousness of petitioner's violations, we do not find that the penalty imposed was excessive (see, Matter of Coleman v Kelly, 143 A.D.2d 539; Matter of Gomez v Coughlin, 140 A.D.2d 902).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.