Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination that he violated inmate rules 113.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [i] [possession of contraband]) and 114.10 ( 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [15] [i] [smuggling]) is supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Mabery v. Coughlin, 168 A.D.2d 879, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 808; Matter of Shakoor v Coughlin, 165 A.D.2d 917, 918, appeal dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 866). Petitioner was not denied his right to present evidence in support of his defense; he failed to show that the documentary evidence and testimony he sought to present at the hearing were relevant to the charges against him ( see, Matter of Hendricks v Scully, 206 A.D.2d 427). Further, even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his contention that he was denied his right to an impartial Hearing Officer ( see, Matter of Nelson v. Coughlin, 188 A.D.2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 834), there is no evidence in the record that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from the alleged bias ( see, Matter of Rosa v. Coombe, 238 A.D.2d 814; Matter of Gardiner v Coughlin, 190 A.D.2d 962, 963, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 710).