Opinion
December 2, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Kahn, J.).
Supreme Court was correct in granting respondent's motion to dismiss the petition seeking relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition wherein petitioner sought to challenge the results of a final parole revocation hearing on the ground that evidence outside the record was considered by the Administrative Law Judge. Supreme Court held that the failure to pursue an administrative appeal barred the relief. We agree.
Petitioner must first exhaust the administrative remedies available to him pursuant to 9 N.Y.CRR part 8006 (see, People ex rel. Gray v New York State Bd. of Parole, 174 A.D.2d 874, 875, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 860). The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies clearly bars any relief under CPLR article 78 (see, Matter of Trimaldi v Superintendent, 169 A.D.2d 960; People ex rel. Beyah v Coughlin, 101 A.D.2d 901, 902). There is nothing in this record to suggest that the claimed errors could not have been remedied in the administrative appeal process (see, Matter of Trimaldi v Superintendent, supra, at 961). Finally, petitioner's constitutional claims do not justify a departure from the general exhaustion of administrative remedies rule (see, Matter of Vasquez v Senkowski, 186 A.D.2d 847, 848; Matter of Bates v Coughlin, 145 A.D.2d 854, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 602).
Yesawich Jr., Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.