MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results for opiates, supporting documentation and the testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance (see Matter of Perkins v Goord, 308 A.D.2d 617, 617;Matter of Coppins v Cerio, 307 A.D.2d 486, 486). The request for urinalysis testing and the urinalysis procedure forms establish an adequate chain of custody and compliance with proper testing procedures. We are unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that the determination must be annulled because the urinalysis request form indicates that the test was approved by a sergeant two days prior to the actual urinalysis request being made. The sergeant explained the inadvertent error at the hearing and, in any event, such error does not affect the validity of the positive test results (see Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 A.D.2d 1026; Matter of Hilts v Selsky, 303 A.D.2d 809, 809-810, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 509). Petitioner's remaining contentions were not raised on administrative appeal and, therefore, are not preserved for our review (see Matter of Brisman v Senkowski, 278 A.D.2d 778, 779). In any event, were we to consider them, we would find them meritless.
Peters, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.