DASH v. GOORD (1998)

 The determination is supported by substantial evidence.   The conflicting testimony presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve, and we perceive no basis in the record to disturb the Hearing Officer's resolution of those issues (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966, 563 N.Y.S.2d 728, 565 N.E.2d 477).

 Petitioner contends that, because the Hearing Officer failed to request extensions of the date for completion of the hearing before expiration of the 14-day time limitation or before the previous extension expired, he failed to complete the hearing in a timely manner (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [b] ).  Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that contention (see, Matter of Muhammad v. Coombe, 237 A.D.2d 993, 655 N.Y.S.2d 221;  Matter of Hay v. Coombe, 229 A.D.2d 1015, 645 N.Y.S.2d 668, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 816, 651 N.Y.S.2d 406, 674 N.E.2d 336).   In any event, the time period is directory, not mandatory, and, absent a showing of substantial prejudice to petitioner, the failure to complete the hearing in a timely manner does not warrant annulment of the determination (see, Matter of Comfort v. Irvin, 197 A.D.2d 907, 908, 602 N.Y.S.2d 264, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 662, 610 N.Y.S.2d 149, 632 N.E.2d 459;  Matter of Lugo v. Coughlin, 182 A.D.2d 920, 582 N.Y.S.2d 555).   Petitioner was informed of the extensions and the reasons therefor, i.e., to obtain the testimony of witnesses requested by petitioner and to resolve a claim by petitioner that inmate witnesses were being threatened or intimidated by facility employees.   Additionally, he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the delay (see, Matter of Lugo v. Coughlin, supra;  Matter of Bernacet v. Coughlin, 145 A.D.2d 802, 535 N.Y.S.2d 785, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 603, 542 N.Y.S.2d 518, 540 N.E.2d 713).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of petitioner and conclude that they lack merit.

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: