Decided April 30, 1992 Appeal from (3d Dept: 179 A.D.2d 980) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

y of petitioner's arguments challenging whether respondent State University of New York at Potsdam (hereinafter SUNY) complied with the notice and due process provisions of its code of student rights, responsibilities and conduct (hereinafter the student code of conduct) are unpreserved, as petitioner failed to raise them during his disciplinary hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Lampert v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 116 A.D.3d 1292, 1294, 984 N.Y.S.2d 234 [2014], lv. denied23 N.Y.3d 908, 2014 WL 2936283 [2014] ; compare Matter of Monnat v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Canton, 125 A.D.3d 1176, 1177, 4 N.Y.S.3d 331 [2015] ). To the extent that petitioner preserved, by raising them on administrative appeal, his claims that SUNY failed to provide written notice of the hearing to the female student (hereinafter the complainant) or require the complainant to attend the hearing (see Matter of Monnat v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Canton, 125 A.D.3d at 1177, 4 N.Y.S.3d 331 ; but see Matter of Shaffer v. Leonardo, 179 A.D.2d 980, 980, 579 N.Y.S.2d 910 [1992], lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 758, 584 N.Y.S.2d 446, 594 N.E.2d 940 [1992] ), such claims are lacking in merit. The record establishes that the complainant "chose[ ]" not to attend the disciplinary hearing and, thus, that SUNY substantially complied with the requirement that the complainant be notified in writing of the date and time of the hearing (see Matter of Glenn v. State Univ. of N.Y., Purchase Coll., 243 A.D.2d 712, 712–713, 663 N.Y.S.2d 633 [1997] ; see also Matter of Shuman v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., 304 A.D.2d 585, 585, 758 N.Y.S.2d 141 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 511, 766 N.Y.S.2d 165, 798 N.E.2d 349 [2003] ).

First, although not setting forth the precise times, dates and locations of petitioner's conduct, the factual allegations of the misbehavior report were sufficient to inform petitioner of the specific charge against him and enable him to prepare a defense ( see, Matter of Martin v Coughlin, 173 AD2d 1039). Next, the claims of inadequate employee assistance and bias on the part of the Hearing Officer were not preserved for our review by timely objection at the time of the hearing ( see, Matter of Giakoumelos v Coughlin, 192 AD2d 998, lv denied 82 NY2d 658; Matter of Shaffer v Leonardo, 179 AD2d 980, lv denied 79 NY2d 758) and are unsupported by the record in any event. "We are also unpersuaded that intermittent gaps in the transcript require reversal where, as here, the missing testimony "is neither material to the determination nor of such significance as to preclude meaningful review" ( Matter of Rodriguez v Coughlin, 167 AD2d 671). Finally, our in camera review discloses that the confidential informant's testimony was sufficiently detailed and specific to furnish an objective basis for determining its credibility ( see, Matter of Scott v Coombe, 228 AD2d 996). That testimony, together with the misbehavior report and other evidence in the record, provide an ample evidentiary basis for the determination of guilt ( see, Matter of Otero v Coughlin, 225 AD2d 841).

He subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that no documentary evidence was presented against him at the disciplinary hearing. Petitioner failed to raise this claim at the tier III hearing with the result that it has not been preserved for our review ( see, Matter of Shaffer v Leonardo, 179 AD2d 980, lv denied 79 NY2d 758). Petitioner also contends that the hearing transcript is incomplete in that certain statements made by petitioner at the hearing were not transcribed, having been noted as "unintelligible". When read in context, however, it is apparent that these untranscribed statements were not relevant to the issue of whether petitioner was guilty of the charged misconduct and they do not preclude meaningful review of the proceedings ( see, Matter of Crandall v Coughlin, 219 AD2d 823; Matter of Fletcher v Selsky, 199 AD2d 865, 866, lv denied 83 NY2d 753).

Petitioner claims that he was not given sufficient notice of the prison disciplinary rules because he was provided with a rule book written in Spanish instead of English. Significantly, he signed the Spanish acknowledgment for receipt of the rule book and there is no record evidence that he does not understand Spanish. Under these circumstances, we find that petitioner has waived his right to claim that he was not provided adequate notice. Furthermore, inasmuch as petitioner did not request copies of the unusual incident report or use of force report prior to or at the administrative hearing, we find that he has failed to preserve his second claim for review ( see, Matter of Shaffer v Leonardo, 179 AD2d 980, lv denied 79 NY2d 758; Matter of Newman v Coughlin, 110 AD2d 981). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

A review of the record reveals that respondents' determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. As petitioner made no objection to the alleged procedural errors at the disciplinary hearing when they could have been corrected, the claimed procedural issues have been waived and will not be considered here (see, Matter of Schaffer v Leonardo, 179 A.D.2d 980, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 758; Matter of Graham v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 178 A.D.2d 870, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 756).