Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We find no merit to the petitioner's contention that he was denied due process because his assigned "employee assistant" failed to provide him with certain requested documents or information. The petitioner was charged with possessing contraband and interfering with the search of his cell. The information he reportedly requested from his employee assistant would have, according to the petitioner, helped determine whether the Correction Officer who searched his cell did so in retaliation for prior events. However, the motivation for the search had no bearing on the issues at the hearing: i.e., whether the petitioner possessed the contraband and interfered with the search. The petitioner had no right to submit irrelevant documentary evidence (see, 7 NYCRR 254.6 [c]; Matter of Irby v Kelly, 161 A.D.2d 860). Thus, the petitioner was not prejudiced by the alleged omissions of his assistant or deprived of due process (see, Matter of Serrano v. Coughlin, 152 A.D.2d 790; Matter of Samuels v. Kelly, 143 A.D.2d 506; Matter of Neri v. Coughlin, 140 A.D.2d 764; Matter of Wright v. Scully, 124 A.D.2d 805). Lawrence, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.