Opinion
April 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Washington County.
Insofar as petitioner failed to appeal the determination of guilt with respect to his first administrative hearing, the portion of his petition seeking review of that determination should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (see, Matter of Sanchez v Reid, 121 A.D.2d 548). Furthermore, in examining the record, the arguments petitioner raises with respect to that hearing fail to show such prejudice as would justify a departure from the general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies (see, Matter of Crowley v O'Keefe, 148 A.D.2d 816, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 780, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 613). As to his contention that he was improperly excluded from the fourth hearing, he refused to answer the Hearing Officer's questions or to even enter a plea, and he was informed that if he refused to cooperate the hearing would continue without him. There being sufficient evidence that petitioner was aware that the failure to follow procedures would preclude his attendance, we find no error in the decision to continue the hearing in absentia (see, Matter of Sanders v Coughlin, 168 A.D.2d 719, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 806). Equally without merit is the claim that the Hearing Officers at the second and third hearings were not impartial. The record fails to disclose any evidence of bias (see, Matter of Aviles v Scully, 162 A.D.2d 451). Finally, the misbehavior reports either alone or coupled with the testimony taken at the hearings constitute substantial evidence to support the determinations of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 156 A.D.2d 806, affd 76 N.Y.2d 964; Matter of McClean v LeFevre, 142 A.D.2d 911). Petitioner's remaining allegations have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.
Weiss, P.J., Crew III, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.