MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from using controlled substances after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Inasmuch as this was petitioner's fourth drug-related offense in 14 months, a penalty of 12 months' confinement to a special housing unit, 12 months' loss of privileges and 12 months' recommended loss of good-time credits was imposed. To the extent that petitioner raises a substantial evidence issue herein, we find that the misbehavior report, together with the positive results of the urinalysis tests and the evidence adduced at the hearing, constitute substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see, Matter of Jackson v. Portuondo, 281 A.D.2d 737, 721 N.Y.S.2d 575). Moreover, we are satisfied that the testimony of the correction officers involved in the procurement and testing of petitioner's urine specimen, together with the documentation thereon, sufficiently established the chain of custody and adequacy of testing procedures (see, Matter of Perez v. Goord, 274 A.D.2d 706; Matter of Mendez v. Selsky, 255 A.D.2d 858, 859).
Likewise, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice resulted from his assistant's alleged failure to provide him with certain evidence and interview witnesses inasmuch as the relevant evidence was supplied by the Hearing Officer and the requested witnesses either testified at the hearing or were determined not to have information relevant to the charge (see, Matter of Roman v. Goord, 272 A.D.2d 695;Matter of Barnwell v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 725, 726, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 751). Finally, petitioner's challenge to the penalty imposed is unpreserved due to his failure to raise it in his administrative appeal and, in any event, is without merit (see, Matter of Brisman v. Senkowski, 278 A.D.2d 778).
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.