Peters, J.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing narcotics and smuggling in violation of prison disciplinary rules after marihuana was discovered in a garage where petitioner frequently loitered. The search of the garage was prompted by information that several correction officers had observed petitioner spending an unusual amount of time around the garage and acting suspiciously, leading them to believe that petitioner was hiding something in the garage. According to the misbehavior report, the search disclosed two plastic sandwich bags containing a substance which tested positive for marihuana secreted inside a coffee can. Petitioner subsequently admitted during an interview with two correction officers that the marihuana belonged to him. Found guilty of all charges, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of his guilt. We confirm.
The testimony of the correction officer who searched the garage and discovered the marihuana, the documentation and testimony relating to the positive test results and the testimony of one of the correction officers who heard petitioner's confession provide substantial evidence of petitioner's guilt (see, Matter of Maldonado v. Goord, 270 A.D.2d 742, 704 N.Y.S.2d 383;Matter of Rosario v. Selsky, 266 A.D.2d 656). Although petitioner contends that he never admitted owning the marihuana, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see,Matter of Hardy v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 830). Moreover, the record indicates that appropriate procedures were used to test the marihuana and that the chain of custody was adequately established (see, Matter of Bradstreet v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 832, 700 N.Y.S.2d 777, 778; Matter of Rivera v. Goord, 258 A.D.2d 858). Any confusion regarding the information contained on the testing documentation regarding the type of testing procedure used was sufficiently explained at the hearing (see, Matter of Mercado v. Selsky, 270 A.D.2d 550, 703 N.Y.S.2d 762).
Turning to petitioner's procedural claims, we reject petitioner's contention that he was denied documentary evidence and relevant witnesses because the information petitioner requested was either unavailable, irrelevant or redundant to other evidence in the record (see, Matter of McBride v. Selsky, 257 A.D.2d 930;Matter of Di Rose v. New York State Dept. of Correction, 228 A.D.2d 868). Finally, there is nothing in the record to substantiate petitioner's contention that the Hearing Officer was biased or considered matters outside the record (see, Matter of Cobb v. Selsky, 270 A.D.2d 747 [Mar. 23, 2000]).
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected as without merit.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.