Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
There was substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner violated a State and institutional rule prohibiting the refusal to obey a direct order (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130).
Further, since the petitioner never claimed during the administrative proceedings that he had not received a copy of the State rule book, that claim cannot be judicially reviewed (see, Matter of Klapak v Blum, 65 N.Y.2d 670; Matter of Photo Medic Equip. v Suffolk County Dept. of Health Servs., 122 A.D.2d 882). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.