MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating prison disciplinary rules which proscribe fighting, disorderly conduct, creating a disturbance, possessing a weapon and refusing a direct order. A second misbehavior report charged petitioner with refusing a different direct order. Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges and he commenced this proceeding to review the determination.
There is no merit to petitioner's claim that the misbehavior reports failed to comply with 7 NYCRR 251-3.1. The regulation does not require the itemization in evidentiary detail of all aspects of the case (see, Matter of Rodriguez v. Coombe, 234 A.D.2d 663, 664). A misbehavior report is sufficient if it contains the date, time and place of the offenses, identifies the disciplinary rules alleged to have been violated and specifies the factual basis for the charges with enough particularity to enable the inmate to prepare a defense (see, Matter of Couch v. Goord, 255 A.D.2d 720, 721). Where, as here, petitioner was given sufficient particulars to make an effective response, the notice requirement was satisfied (see, Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Mann, 85 N.Y.2d 113, 123). The detailed misbehavior reports and the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report containing multiple charges, together with the other evidence presented at the hearing, provides substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966). The record provides no support for petitioner's claim of Hearing Officer bias (see, Matter of Lawrence v. Headley, 257 A.D.2d 837, 838).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.