"The record further establishes that any defects in his prehearing employee assistance were remedied by the Hearing Officer, and petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by said defects" ( Matter of Gulifield v. Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 83 N.Y.S.3d 363 [3d Dept. 2018] [citations omitted]).
Absent such evidence, we agree that any testimony offered by petitioner's requested medical witnesses - who were not present for the incident - would have been irrelevant (see e.g. Matter of Santiago v Capra, 170 A.D.3d 1180, 1181-1182 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 912 [2019]; Matter of Blocker v Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1285, 1286 [2013]). Nor are we persuaded that petitioner was denied adequate employee assistance, "as the record establishes that any alleged deficiencies were remedied by the Hearing Officer without any prejudice to petitioner" (Matter of Zielinski v Venettozzi, 177 A.D.3d 1047, 1048 [2019], affd 35 N.Y.3d 1082 [2020]; accord Matter of Everett v Venettozzi, 170 A.D.3d 1408, 1409 [2019]; see Matter of Gulifield v Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1003 [2018]). Petitioner's remaining arguments in this regard, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
The misbehavior report, the attached inmate injury report, which contained the nursing assessment of petitioner's physical condition, and the testimony of the correction officer who observed petitioner in the recreation room on the day in question and noted – in addition to the nurse's physical findings – petitioner's difficulty in steadying himself without leaning against a wall, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Simmons v. Venettozzi, 153 A.D.3d 1016, 1016, 56 N.Y.S.3d 908 [2017] ; Matter of Vargus v. Annucci, 147 A.D.3d 1124, 1124–1125, 45 N.Y.S.3d 811 [2017] ). Petitioner's denials and/or exculpatory explanations for his behavior presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Briggs v. Lilley, 181 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 117 N.Y.S.3d 895 [2020] ; Matter of Gulifield v. Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 83 N.Y.S.3d 363 [2018] ). Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the absence of urinalysis or other scientific testing to confirm the presence of an intoxicant does not undermine the finding of guilt, as "the intoxicant charge was based on petitioner's observable behavior at the time of [the misbehavior] report, not any scientific testing" ( Matter of Partak v. Venettozzi, 175 A.D.3d 1633, 1635, 109 N.Y.S.3d 481 [2019] ; see Matter of Simmons v. Venettozzi, 153 A.D.3d at 1016, 56 N.Y.S.3d 908 ).
The misbehavior report, the attached inmate injury report, which contained the nursing assessment of petitioner's physical condition, and the testimony of the correction officer who observed petitioner in the recreation room on the day in question and noted - in addition to the nurse's physical findings - petitioner's difficulty in steadying himself without leaning against a wall, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Simmons v Venettozzi, 153 A.D.3d 1016, 1016 [2017]; Matter of Vargus v Annucci, 147 A.D.3d 1124, 1124-1125 [2017]). Petitioner's denials and/or exculpatory explanations for his behavior presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Briggs v Lilley, 181 A.D.3d 1088, 1089 [2020]; Matter of Gulifield v Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1002 [2018]). Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the absence of urinalysis or other scientific testing to confirm the presence of an intoxicant does not undermine the finding of guilt, as "the intoxicant charge was based on petitioner's observable behavior at the time of [the misbehavior] report, not any scientific testing" (Matter of Partak v Venettozzi, 175 A.D.3d 1633, 1635 [2019]; see Matter of Simmons v Venettozzi, 153 A.D.3d at 1016).
Turning to petitioner's procedural contentions, the misbehavior report provided sufficient information to place him on notice of the charges and afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense (see 7 NYCRR 251–3.1 [c]; Matter ofDunbar v. Annucci, 173 A.D.3d 1598, 1599, 101 N.Y.S.3d 658 [2019] ; Matter ofQuiroz v. Venettozzi, 161 A.D.3d 1475, 1476, 78 N.Y.S.3d 443 [2018] ). Further, we reject petitioner's contention that he was denied effective employee assistance, as the record establishes that any alleged deficiencies were remedied by the Hearing Officer without any prejudice to petitioner (see Matter ofGulifield v. Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 83 N.Y.S.3d 363 [2018] ; Matter of Funches v. State of New York Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 163 A.D.3d 1390, 1391, 80 N.Y.S.3d 742 [2018], lv dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1140, 92 N.Y.S.3d 177, 116 N.E.3d 661 [2019] ). We also find unavailing petitioner's arguments that he was denied the right to submit documentary evidence and to call witnesses.
We confirm. The misbehavior report, confidential documentation considered by the Hearing Officer in camera and the hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Gulifield v. Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1002, 83 N.Y.S.3d 363 [2018] ; Matter of Hynes v. Venettozzi, 153 A.D.3d 1504, 1505, 59 N.Y.S.3d 917 [2017] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Hearing Officer made an independent assessment of the reliability of the confidential information (see Matter of Williams v. Fischer, 18 N.Y.3d 888, 890, 940 N.Y.S.2d 531, 963 N.E.2d 1232 [2012] ; Matter of Hobson v. Prack, 127 A.D.3d 1370, 1371, 4 N.Y.S.3d 560 [2015] ).
The regulatory time requirements are directory, not mandatory, and petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the short delay in obtaining the extension (see Matter of Shearer v. Annucci, 155 A.D.3d 1277, 1278, 65 N.Y.S.3d 249 [2017] ; Matter of Al–Matin v. Prack, 131 A.D.3d 1293, 1293, 16 N.Y.S.3d 96 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 913, 23 N.Y.S.3d 639, 44 N.E.3d 937 [2015] ; Matter of De La Cruz v. Bezio, 107 A.D.3d 1275, 1276, 967 N.Y.S.2d 519 [2013] ). We also find without merit petitioner's contention that he was denied effective employee assistance as the record establishes that any alleged deficiencies were remedied by the Hearing Officer without any prejudice to petitioner (see Matter of Gulifield v. Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 83 N.Y.S.3d 363 [2018] ; Matter of Funches v. State of New York Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 163 A.D.3d 1390, 1391, 80 N.Y.S.3d 742 [2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1140, 92 N.Y.S.3d 177, 116 N.E.3d 661 [2019] ). To the extent that petitioner asserts that he was denied the right to call a witness, the record establishes that the Hearing Officer made reasonable and substantial efforts to contact the requested witness at his last known telephone number (see Matter of Davila v. Prack, 113 A.D.3d 978, 979, 979 N.Y.S.2d 195 [2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 904, 990 N.Y.S.2d 162, 13 N.E.3d 662 [2014] ).
When the hearing resumed, petitioner affirmed that he had met with the assistant and had been provided all the documents that he had requested, and he raised no further objection as to his employee assistance. Inasmuch as any defects in his employee assistance were remedied by the Hearing Officer, and petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by said defects, the record does not establish that he was denied adequate employee assistance (see Matter of Gulifield v. Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 83 N.Y.S.3d 363 [2018] ; Matter of Harris v. Annucci, 145 A.D.3d 1293, 1294, 44 N.Y.S.3d 240 [2016] ). Finally, the record does not reveal that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Swinton v. Venettozzi, 164 A.D.3d 1584, 1585, 81 N.Y.S.3d 918 [2018] ; Matter of Lebron v. Annucci, 163 A.D.3d 1387, 1388, 77 N.Y.S.3d 897 [2018] ).
The misbehavior report, the attached inmate injury report, which contained the nursing assessment of petitioner's physical condition, and the testimony of the correction officer who observed petitioner in the recreation room on the day in question and noted - in addition to the nurse's physical findings - petitioner's difficulty in steadying himself without leaning against a wall, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Simmons v Venettozzi, 153 A.D.3d 1016, 1016 [2017]; Matter of Vargus v Annucci, 147 A.D.3d 1124, 1124-1125 [2017]). Petitioner's denials and/or exculpatory explanations for his behavior presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Briggs v Lilley, 181 A.D.3d 1088, 1089 [2020]; Matter of Gulifield v Annucci, 164 A.D.3d 1001, 1002 [2018]). Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the absence of urinalysis or other scientific testing to confirm the presence of an intoxicant does not undermine the finding of guilt, as "the intoxicant charge was based on petitioner's observable behavior at the time of [the misbehavior] report, not any scientific testing" (Matter of Partak v Venettozzi, 175 A.D.3d 1633, 1635 [2019]; see Matter of Simmons v Venettozzi, 153 A.D.3d at 1016).