Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The hearing officer's determination that the petitioner used a controlled substance, thus violating disciplinary rule 113.24 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiv]) was supported by substantial evidence. During the hearing, the hearing officer considered, inter alia, a misconduct report and two urinalysis reports which indicated that the petitioner tested positive for opiates ( see Matter of Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966; Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; see also Matter of Thompson v Goord, 37 AD3d 914).
The petitioner failed to preserve his claim that the hearing officer should have recused himself, by failing to raise that issue at the hearing ( see e.g. Matter of Blackshear v Coughlin, 185 AD2d 493; cf. Matter of Cepeda v Goord, 39 AD3d 640; Matter of Royster v Goord, 26 AD3d 503). In any event, this contention is without merit. There is no evidence in the record to support the petitioner's contention that the hearing officer was biased ( see Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833; Matter of Galdamez v Davis, 11 AD3d 535), and there is no indication that the outcome of the hearing was affected by any alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer ( see Matter of Rosa v Coombe, 238 AD2d 814).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit ( see Matter of Montalalou v Coombe, 242 AD2d 917; see also Matter of Zinnamon v Selsky, 261 AD2d 682).