Despite exclusion of those letters, petitioner submitted the live testimony of four witnesses who attested to his good character. Thus, regardless of whether the letters were timely disclosed (see 9 NYCRR 4550.4 ), petitioner was not deprived of due process by the exclusion of cumulative evidence (seeMatter of Casamassima v. New York State Dept. of Health, Admin. Review Bd. for Professional Med. Conduct , 135 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 23 N.Y.S.3d 476 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 912, 2016 WL 4533042 [2016] ; see alsoCor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v. Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC , 34 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 825 N.Y.S.2d 601 [2006] ; Matter of Kussius v. Walker , 247 A.D.2d 911, 912, 668 N.Y.S.2d 784 [1998] ). We disagree with petitioner's assertion that respondent improperly deviated from its precedent, as a penalty must be imposed based on the individual facts of the case and the cited cases presented different circumstances.

To the extent that claimant contends that he was denied due process in this regard, we note that "[t]he failure to electronically record a [disciplinary] hearing involves a regulatory rather than a fundamental right" (Matter of Weiss v. Coughlin, 199 A.D.2d 638, 639 n., 604 N.Y.S.2d 654 [1993] ). Further, while claimant asserts that the off-the-record conversation necessarily colored the Hearing Officer's determination, nothing in the record suggests that the Hearing Officer elicited any proof during the course of this conversation that, in turn, formed the basis for her ultimate determination (compare Matter of Berrios v. Kuhlmann, 143 A.D.2d 475, 476–477, 532 N.Y.S.2d 593 [1988], with Matter of Lopez v. Selsky, 5 A.D.3d 897, 898, 772 N.Y.S.2d 884 [2004] ). Under these circumstances, we discern neither prejudice to claimant nor a regulatory violation (see Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911, 912, 668 N.Y.S.2d 784 [1998] ; Matter of Berrios v. Kuhlmann, 143 A.D.2d at 477, 532 N.Y.S.2d 593 ; see also Matter of Abdur–Raheem v. Mann, 200 A.D.2d 918, 920, 607 N.Y.S.2d 439 [1994], affd. 85 N.Y.2d 113, 623 N.Y.S.2d 758, 647 N.E.2d 1266 [1995] ; Matter of Abreu v. Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 1028, 1029, 550 N.Y.S.2d 514 [1990] ). Finally, to the extent that claimant alleges that the underlying disciplinary determination was not supported by substantial evidence and/or was the product of Hearing Officer bias, suffice it to say that ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt involves the very sort of quasi-judicial, discretionary conduct for which defendant enjoys absolute immunity (see Arteaga v. State of New York, 72 N.Y.2d at 218–219, 532 N.Y.S.2d 57, 527 N.E.2d 1194 ).

Petitioner signed a document waiving his right to employee assistance and, when he requested assistance at the hearing, the Hearing Officer appropriately acted “by offering to provide him with whatever he would have requested from an assistant” ( Matter of Truman v. Fischer, 75 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 907 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2010]; see Matter of Alvarez v. Fischer, 94 A.D.3d 1404, 1405, 942 N.Y.S.2d 711 [2012], lv. denied96 A.D.3d 1703, 2012 WL 2509920 [2012] ). The Hearing Officer properly denied petitioner's ensuing request for the testimony of a correction officer as irrelevant ( see Matter of Henderson v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d 1162, 1163, 950 N.Y.S.2d 809 [2012] ). Likewise, petitioner was not entitled to a copy of the operator's manual for the testing equipment ( see Matter of Anderson v. Prack, 111 A.D.3d 1214, 1214, 975 N.Y.S.2d 706 [2013]; Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911, 912, 668 N.Y.S.2d 784 [1998]; but see Matter of Marshall v. Fischer, 103 A.D.3d 726, 728, 958 N.Y.S.2d 800 [2013] ). The Hearing Officer also appropriately denied petitioner's request for unredacted log book entries that would have identified other inmates who had been tested on the day in question ( see Matter of Lindo v. Fischer, 72 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 903 N.Y.S.2d 543 [2010] ). Petitioner's remaining claims have been examined and found to be meritless.

We confirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not deprived of a fair hearing, inasmuch as the Hearing Officer's denial of his request for the training manual and other information from the manufacturer regarding the cleaning, maintenance and testing procedures of the SYVA/Emit Jr. urinalysis machine was not a denial of petitioner's due process rights ( see Matter of Harrison v. Fischer, 56 A.D.3d 917, 917–918, 867 N.Y.S.2d 749 [2008]; Matter of Davis v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 932, 932, 700 N.Y.S.2d 876 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 751, 711 N.Y.S.2d 153, 733 N.E.2d 225 [2000]; Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911, 912, 668 N.Y.S.2d 784 [1998] ). ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT The detailed misbehavior report indicating that petitioner's urine twice tested positive for cannabinoids constitutes substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner was guilty of using a controlled substance (see, Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911). The test documents attached to the misbehavior report establish the necessary chain of custody and proper foundation for reliance on the test results (see, Matter of Garcia v. Goord, 272 A.D.2d 694). The testimony of the author of the misbehavior report was not required (see, Matter of McMillan v. Goord, 252 A.D.2d 645), particularly in the absence of any request for witnesses by petitioner (see, Matter of Cowart v. Selsky, 260 A.D.2d 883). Petitioner's remaining arguments, including the claim of Hearing Officer bias, have been considered and are lacking in merit. ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using controlled substances after two EMIT tests performed on petitioner's urine sample yielded positive results for the presence of cannabinoids. In our view, the misbehavior report, the positive results of the uranalysis tests and the hearing testimony constitute substantial evidence supporting the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911, 912). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the chain of custody was sufficiently documented and a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results (see, Matter of Garcia v. Goord, 272 A.D.2d 694 Although petitioner claimed that he was served an incomplete request for urinalysis form, the Hearing Officer was within his authority in crediting the testimony of a correction officer to the effect that appropriate procedures were followed and the incomplete copy submitted by petitioner at the hearing must have been altered after it was served (see, Matter of Turner v. Newton, 272 A.D.2d 688, 708 N.Y.S.2d 645). Finally, we have examined petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim that the Hearing Officer was biased, and, to the extent that they were preserved for appellate review, find them to be unpersuasive.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, the positive results of the urinalysis tests and the testimony of the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report and performed the urinalysis test on petitioner's sample constitute substantial evidence to support the charge of drug use (see,Matter of Lagano v. Goord, 263 A.D.2d 756, 694 N.Y.S.2d 198; Matter of Rivera v. Goord, 261 A.D.2d 754). We have examined petitioner's remaining arguments, including his claim that his due process rights were infringed due to the denial of his request for a copy of the SYVA ETS operation manual (see, Matter of Foust v. Goord, 262 A.D.2d 904, 694 N.Y.S.2d 489; Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911), and find them to be unpersuasive. Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from using controlled substances after two EMIT tests performed on petitioner's urine sample yielded positive results for the presence of cannabinoids and opiates. In our view, the misbehavior report combined with the testimony from the correction officer who tested the sample, constitute substantial evidence supporting the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911, 912). Contrary to petitioner's contention, a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results and the Hearing Officer was within his province in crediting the testimony of the misbehavior report's author (see, Matter of Gonzalez v. Selsky, 253 A.D.2d 940). We have examined petitioner's remaining challenges and, to the extent that they have been preserved for appellate review, find them to be without merit.

Petitioner was served with a misbehavior report alleging that two EMIT tests performed on petitioner's urine sample yielded positive results for the presence of cannabinoids. At the ensuing tier III prison disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from using controlled substances. In our view, petitioner's admission of guilt, combined with, inter alia, the positive results of the urinalysis tests, constitute substantial evidence supporting the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911, 912). Contrary to petitioner's contention, a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results. Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claims of insufficient notice, Hearing Officer bias and ineffective employee assistance, have been reviewed and, to the extent that they were preserved for appellate review, found to be unpersuasive.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from using controlled substances, after two EMIT tests performed on petitioner's urine sample yielded positive results for the presence of cannabinoids. In our view, the misbehavior report, combined with the testimony of the correction officer who performed the tests and authored the misbehavior report, constitute substantial evidence supporting the charge of drug use (see, Matter of Kussius v. Walker, 247 A.D.2d 911, 912). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the chain of custody was sufficiently demonstrated and a proper foundation was laid for the reliance on the positive test results. The reporting correction officer responded to petitioner's questions relating to the timing of the tests and the Hearing Officer was entitled to credit his testimony (see, Matter of Gonzalez v. Selsky, 253 A.D.2d 940). With respect to petitioner's argument that he was improperly denied documentary evidence, we find that the Hearing Officer fully explored petitioner's claims and properly found that the requested material was either irrelevant or unavailable due to security concerns (see, Matter of Johnson v. Selsky, 257 A.D.2d 874;Matter of Fletcher v. Murphy, 249 A.D.2d 638). Finally, we have examined petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer was biased and find it to be wholly unsupported by the record.