Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits the use of controlled substances after his urine tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Petitioner contends that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence because there were gaps in the chain of custody of his urine samples. We do not agree. The evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to substantiate the required chain of custody ( see, Matter of Berrios v. Kuhlmann, 143 A.D.2d 475, 477). As to petitioner's claim that his urine samples were left unattended in a nonsecure area for over three hours, this testimony was contradicted by that of a correction officer and, in any event, raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve ( see, Matter of Harris v. Goord, 238 A.D.2d 698, 699). Finally, we find that petitioner was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and we reject his claim of Hearing Officer bias ( see, Matter of Nieves v. Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 943).
Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.