e extent petitioner challenges the absence from the misbehavior report of endorsements from correction officers who witnessed the incident, petitioner has established no prejudice resulting therefrom (see, Matter of Williams v. Bennett, 273 A.D.2d 679, 711 N.Y.S.2d 344). We also reject petitioner's assertion of Hearing Officer bias. Although the Hearing Officer failed to provide a written explanation for his refusal to permit testimony from other unnamed inmate witnesses present at the commissary at the time of the incident, the record reveals that such testimony would have been redundant given the testimony from four other eyewitness inmates (see, Matter of Daum v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 715, 711 N.Y.S.2d 212). Regarding petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer failed to call a correction officer mentioned in the misbehavior report, we note that petitioner never requested testimony from the witness and the Hearing Officer is not obligated to present petitioner's case for him (see, Matter of Pitsley v. Senkowski, 237 A.D.2d 829, 830). Furthermore, we do not find the penalty imposed to be harsh or excessive. Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly before this Court, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
In view of the relatively insubstantial nature of the potential deprivation facing a tier II inmate — which does not involve imposition of "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life" (Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484) — the inmate's due process rights are not implicated by denying him or her an assistant. In any event, we find that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the denial of an assistant (see,Matter of Pitsley v. Senkowski, 237 A.D.2d 829; Matter of Rosario v. Lacy, 206 A.D.2d 583). The Hearing Officer allowed petitioner to present all of the witnesses that he requested and the only documentary evidence that was denied petitioner was either irrelevant or redundant (see,Matter of Mabry v. Coughlin, 196 A.D.2d 931, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 664). Furthermore, we reject petitioner's contention that intermittent gaps in the hearing transcript warrant reversal.
In any event, the log which petitioner sought did not even exist. In view of this, as well as petitioner's failure to demonstrate that his assistant's other alleged omissions prejudiced his defense, we reject his claim (see, Matter of Pitsley v. Senkowski, 237 A.D.2d 829, 830; Matter of McKinley v. Stinson, 237 A.D.2d 815, 816). Lastly, upon our review of the record, we find that the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence.