Opinion
August 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Essex County.
At no time during the course of the disciplinary hearing or on administrative appeal did petitioner request an interpreter. Having failed to do so at a time when any alleged error could have been corrected or on administrative appeal constitutes a waiver of this issue (see, Matter of McClean v LeFevre, 142 A.D.2d 911, 912). In any event, the regulations only require the presence of an interpreter when the inmate does not speak any English ( 7 NYCRR 253.2). At the commencement of the hearing petitioner indicated that he fully understood the Hearing Officer's recitation of, among other things, petitioner's procedural rights and he fully participated in the hearing. Consequently, it cannot be said that petitioner's due process rights were violated (see, Matter of Wong v Coughlin, 138 A.D.2d 899, 900; Matter of Peart v Kelly, 134 A.D.2d 843, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 801). Likewise, petitioner failed to raise any claim on administrative appeal with respect to the impartiality of the Hearing Officer and, therefore, that issue has also been waived (see, Matter of Samuels v Kelly, 143 A.D.2d 506, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 707). Moreover, there is no merit to petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer was not impartial (see, Matter of Diaz v Coughlin, 143 A.D.2d 485). We have examined petitioner's remaining contention and find it lacking in merit.
Mahoney, P.J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.