Calendar Date: April 3, 2018Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.__________Ramal Davis, Attica, petitioner pro se.Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Bradyof counsel), for respondent.__________Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to thisCourt by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) toreview a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections andCommunity Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violatingcertain prison disciplinary rules.Petitioner informed a sergeant within the facility that hecould not locate his state-issued razor. The razor was not foundfollowing searches by petitioner and a correction officer, andpetitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with propertydamage or loss. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing,petitioner was found guilty as charged. That determination wasaffirmed on administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78proceeding ensued.Preliminarily, the proceeding was properly transferred tothis Court as the petition raised an issue of substantialevidence, but petitioner has abandoned such issue by not raisingit in his brief (see Matter of Bonnemere v Annucci, 153 AD3d 983,984 [2017]; Matter of Ayers v Venettozzi, 142 AD3d 1204, 1205 n 1[2016]). Turning to petitioner’s procedural claims, although thehearing transcript contains inaudible portions, the gaps are notso substantial or significant as to preclude meaningful review ofthe procedural arguments advanced by petitioner (see Matter ofLegeros v Annucci, 147 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2017]; Matter of Torres vNew York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 130 AD3d1122, 1122-1123 [2015]).Petitioner also claims that he was improperly denied accessto Department of Corrections and Community Supervision DirectiveNos. 2948 and 4004, relating to, respectively, unusual incidentreports and reporting loss of issued items. The recorddemonstrates that Directive No. 4004 was irrelevant in that nounusual incident report was created, and Directive No. 2948pertains only to employees and not petitioner. There wastherefore no prejudicial error in the refusal of the HearingOfficer to produce the directives (see Matter of McIver v Goord,37 AD3d 943, 945 [2007]; Matter of Miller v Goord, 2 AD3d 928,930 [2003]). Finally, to the extent that petitioner asserts thatthe Hearing Officer was biased, our review of the recordestablishes that the determination of guilt flowed from theevidence presented and not from any alleged bias (see Matter ofBonnemere v Annucci, 153 AD3d at 984; Matter of Fletcher v Goord,16 AD3d 731, 732-733 [2005]). Petitioner’s remainingcontentions, to the extent that they are preserved for ourreview, have been considered and found to be without merit.Garry, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, withoutcosts, and petition dismissed.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
