Petitioner's contention that he should have been afforded an attorney to represent him at the disciplinary hearing is meritless (see, Matter of Shaffer v Hoke, 174 A.D.2d 787). Similarly without merit is petitioner's argument that the regulations of the Department of Correctional Services are unconstitutional because of their failure to set forth a maximum penalty which can be imposed (see, Matter of Coleman v Kelly, 72 N.Y.2d 850). In addition, petitioner has failed to meet his burden of showing bias or prejudice on the part of the Hearing Officer and that the outcome of the hearing flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of McCoy v Leonardo, 175 A.D.2d 358; Matter of Nieves v Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 943). We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Levine, J.P., Mercure, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.