Peters, J.
Following a tier III hearing on three misbehavior reports, petitioner was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting violent conduct, assault on inmates, fighting, weapon possession, smuggling, refusing a direct order, assault on staff and an unhygienic act. Supreme Court rejected petitioner's claimed procedural errors and dismissed the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioner appeals.
We affirm. The Hearing Officer was not required to personally ascertain the reason for a certain inmate witness's refusal to testify, having instead made sufficient inquiry into the facts surrounding the refusal through two correction officers (see, Matter of Colon v. Goord, 245 A.D.2d 582, 584; Matter of Boyd v. Selsky, 232 A.D.2d 929, 930). Petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice accruing to him by the absence from the misbehavior report of the signatures of certain correction officers who witnessed the incident at issue (see, Matter of Carter v. Goord, 266 A.D.2d 623, 624; Matter of Smith v. Walker, 209 A.D.2d 799, 800, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 807). The hearing was not untimely since all extensions were properly authorized (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b]). In any event, petitioner has not alleged any prejudice flowing from the delay (see, Matter of Byas v. Goord, 272 A.D.2d 800, 801, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 765; Matter of Proctor v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 749, 750). Finally, the record, which contains substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's conclusions, does not support petitioner's claim of Hearing Officer bias or his claim that he was denied meaningful employee assistance.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.