Opinion
February 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although the petitioner was not originally classified as a central monitoring case, after several years, his classification was changed. We do not agree with the petitioner's argument that, pursuant to 7 NYCRR 1000.4 (a) (3), such a reclassification may occur only upon the presentation of new evidence demonstrating a deterioration of the prisoner's behavior. The respondents had the right to reevaluate the petitioner's case and to determine his classification on the basis of the current convictions for which petitioner is being held and his criminal history (see, Matter of Terry J. v. Annucci, 206 A.D.2d 578; People ex rel. Williams v Ward, 73 A.D.2d 941; Matter of Ramirez v. Ward, 64 A.D.2d 995).
We have examined the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Altman, JJ., concur.