Although petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer should have called the correction officer who wrote the misbehavior report, petitioner himself never made such a request. In this regard, we note that a Hearing Officer is not obligated to present an inmate's case for him ( see, Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 179 AD2d 949). Petitioner's remaining arguments have been examined and rejected as either not properly before this Court or as lacking in merit. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
The misbehavior report expressly set forth in detail the evidence on which the charge was essentially predicated, i.e., the items in petitioner's possession, thereby affording him the opportunity to present a defense which, in fact, he did (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 144; Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 173 A.D.2d 1039; Matter of Morales v Senkowski, 165 A.D.2d 393, 395). Petitioner likewise waived his challenge to Urban's confidential testimony by failing to object at the hearing when any error could have been corrected (see, Matter of Gonzales v Coughlin, 180 A.D.2d 974; Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 949). Were we to consider the challenge, we would find that it lacks merit since petitioner was advised that confidential testimony was being taken in connection with the hearing, a valid reason was given for keeping the testimony confidential and the testimony has been submitted for our in camera inspection (see, Matter of Breazil v Senkowski, 199 A.D.2d 769). Petitioner's challenge is further diminished by the fact that Urban testified as to the substance of his investigation and was questioned by petitioner. Inasmuch as it was within the Hearing Officer's discretion to reject petitioner's explanation for his possession of the documents (see, Matter of Holley v Coughlin, 187 A.D.2d 865), we reject petitioner's argument that respondent's determination is not supported by substantial evidence.
Further, there is no evidence in the record supporting petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome of the hearing flowed from any such alleged bias (see, Matter of Gonzalez v Mann, 186 A.D.2d 876; Matter of Nieves v Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 943). The fact that the Hearing Officer failed to physically examine the nail clipper does not require a different result. Petitioner did not request the production of the nail clipper at the hearing and, given the misbehavior report and other evidence of petitioner's guilt, the Hearing Officer had no obligation to present petitioner's case for him by physically evaluating the nail clipper (see, Matter of Cruz v Amico, 186 A.D.2d 841; Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 949; Matter of Smith v Coughlin, 111 A.D.2d 503). Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur.
Memorandum: The written misbehavior report, which describes with specificity the incident from which the charges arose, was authored by a Correction Officer who participated in the incident and co-signed by two other Correction Officers. That report constitutes substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's determination of guilt (see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966; People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 140). Petitioner's argument that the Hearing Officer should have more fully investigated the charges against him is without merit. The Hearing Officer is under no obligation to call the reporting officer as a witness (Matter of Perez v Wilmot, 67 N.Y.2d 615, 617), nor is the Hearing Officer required to make petitioner's case for him (Matter of Rivera v Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 949; Matter of Jackson v LeFevre, 128 A.D.2d 1001, 1002).