Opinion
(1342) CA 01-00004.
November 9, 2001.
(Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — CPLR art 78.)
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI AND LAWTON, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking review of a determination following a Tier III hearing finding him guilty of violating various inmate rules. We reject the contention of petitioner that he was denied his due process right to an inmate assistant of his choice. "An inmate has no constitutional due process right to the selection of any particular person as his assistant" ( Matter of Scott v. Kelly, 143 A.D.2d 540, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 705). We reject the further contention of petitioner that the misbehavior report did not sufficiently identify his role in the incident leading to the charges. The misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to enable petitioner to respond to the charges ( see, Matter of Vogelsang v. Coombe, 105 A.D.2d 913, 914, affd 66 N.Y.2d 835).
There is no support in the record for petitioner's further contention that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias ( see, Matter of Hooper v. Goord, 247 A.D.2d 884, 884-885). Petitioner also contends that he was denied due process when the misbehavior reports of two other inmates were not disclosed to him. However, petitioner has shown no prejudice arising from the failure to provide him with those misbehavior reports ( see, Matter of Duamutef v. Johnson, 266 A.D.2d 823, 824, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 759). We reject the further contention of petitioner that he has been denied due process because there are gaps in the hearing transcript. "[T]hose gaps do not preclude meaningful review of petitioner's contentions, and petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced thereby" ( Matter of O'Reilly v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 858). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.