Oneil Reid, Napanoch, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Sean P. Mix of counsel), for respondents. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner, an incarcerated individual, was involved in an incident with another incarcerated individual on the prison gallery and was escorted by a responding correction officer to the facility infirmary for medical treatment of his injuries. During a search of petitioner by the responding correction officer, an object was observed in his right nostril, which petitioner removed when directed to do so. The object was a folded ceramic utility knife with a 1 1/4-inch blade, which was photographed. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon and, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. Initially, although petitioner raises a substantial evidence argument in his brief before this Court, his failure to include that argument in his petition renders his claim unreviewable (see Matter of Kalwasinski v. Bezio, 83 AD3d 1313, 1314 [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Johnson v. Goord, 297 AD2d 881, 881 [3d Dept 2002]; see also Matter of Morales v. Fischer, 89 AD3d 1346, 1346 n [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Dawes v. McClellan, 225 AD2d 830, 831 [3d Dept 1996]).[1] To the extent that his procedural claims are preserved for our review, we find that petitioner was not denied the right to any relevant requested documentary evidence. The record reflects that petitioner’s employee assistant read him the preliminary unusual incident report, satisfying that obligation (see Matter of Knight v. Rodriguez, 217 AD3d 1300, 1301 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of James v. Venettozzi, 201 AD3d 1288, 1290 [3d Dept 2022]) and petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) directive related to the unusual incident report was relevant to the charge.[2] Petitioner’s list of requested documents reflects that the log books were issued to him and, when asked at the hearing, he did not contend that he had not received them or the related DOCCS directive, thereby failing to preserve any claim in this regard (see Matter of Davis v. Annucci, 140 AD3d 1432, 1433 [3d Dept 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 1109 [2016]). Further, petitioner’s requests for the disciplinary record of the correction officer who searched him in the medical facility and the Hearing Officer’s Reference Book were properly denied as irrelevant (see Matter of Legette v. Rodriguez, 213 AD3d 1066, 1067-1068 [3d Dept 2023]). Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Lynch, McShan and Powers, JJ., concur. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
