Even if it is accepted that petitioner's argument concerning the timeliness of his disciplinary hearing was properly preserved for judicial review, we reject it as lacking in merit. Although the hearing was commenced beyond the seven-day time limitation set forth in 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a), authorization to extend the hearing was timely requested and granted (see, Matter of Reveron v. Coughlin, 142 A.D.2d 860; Matter of Schettino v. Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 804). We also find no support in the record for petitioner's claim that the Hearing Officer was biased (see, Matter of Cogle v. Coughlin, 166 A.D.2d 803). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.
Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.