Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting solicitation of services and violation of facility correspondence procedures. We confirm. The misbehavior report containing a specific account of the incident written by the investigating correction officer, testimony of the correction officer and the subject letter provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Goncalves v Donnelly, 9 AD3d 721).
Petitioner's procedural objections are unpersuasive. The record demonstrates that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner and the determination did not flow from any alleged bias on the part of the Hearing Officer ( see Matter of Cayenne v Goord, 16 AD3d 782, 783-784). There is no merit to petitioner's claim that his letter was improperly inspected, as all business mail is subject to inspection ( 7 NYCRR 720.7 [d]). Contrary to petitioner's contention that the misbehavior report inadequately described the charge, the report provided petitioner with the detail necessary to prepare a defense ( see Matter of Smith v Portuondo, 309 AD2d 1028). Petitioner's remaining claims lack merit.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.