Although petitioner argues to the contrary, the decision to exclude him from his disciplinary hearing was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Cortez v. Coughlin, 115 A.D.2d 841, affd 67 N.Y.2d 907). The Hearing Officer determined that the denial was required in order to promote "institutional safety or correctional goals" ( 7 NYCRR 254.6 [b]) and the record contains factual support for this determination (cf., Matter of Boodro v Coughlin, 142 A.D.2d 820). With respect to the issue of employee assistance, petitioner was given the opportunity to select such an assistant, failed to do so, and also refused to sign the form requesting such assistance. Therefore, his decision to proceed without an assistant was a circumstance of his own creation which did not amount to a deprivation of due process (see, Matter of Peart v. Kelly, 134 A.D.2d 843, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 801). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.
Weiss, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.