The Hearing Officer also determined that petitioner lacked credibility given his differing testimony about his sobriety. Despite petitioner's urging, this Court "will not disturb a finding based on a credibility issue within the sole province of [the Hearing Officer] to determine (Matter of Lambraia v State Univ. of N.Y. at Binghamton, 135 A.D.3d 1144, 1146 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citation omitted]; see Matter of Neelman v State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 192 A.D.3d 1621, 1623 [4th Dept 2021]). Thus, given the reporting individual's testimony as to the night of the incident, we find that there is substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner violated the student code as to all three charges (see Matter of Weber v State Univ. of N.Y., Coll. at Cortland, 150 A.D.3d at 1430; Matter of Schwarzmueller v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 105 A.D.3d 1117, 1120 [3d Dept 2013]).

In addition, the Trooper's testimony, along with his refusal report, which was entered in evidence, established that petitioner refused to submit to the chemical test after he was arrested for DWI and warned three times of the consequences of such refusal (seeMalvestuto , 207 A.D.3d at 1246, 170 N.Y.S.3d 792 ; see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [b] ). Petitioner's remaining contention was not raised in his administrative appeal, and therefore petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that contention (seeMatter of Neelman v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo , 192 A.D.3d 1621, 1623, 140 N.Y.S.3d 852 [4th Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Gorman v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 34 A.D.3d 1361, 1361, 824 N.Y.S.2d 526 [4th Dept. 2006] ).

Petitioner has failed to preserve for review his argument that respondents’ violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with facts supporting the charges sustained against him, as he did not raise the issue in his administrative appeal (seeMatter of Neelman v. State Univ. at Buffalo, 192 A.D.3d 1621, 1623 [4th Dept 2021] ). In any event, petitioner had sufficient notice of the basis for the decision, as he was given the witnesses’ statements along with the charge notice and heard the evidence presented at the hearing (seeMatter of Ferraro v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Purchase Coll., 162 A.D.3d 766, 767, 80 N.Y.S.3d 64 [2d Dept. 2018] ).