Opinion
September 27, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner failed to preserve for judicial review his contention that he was denied effective prehearing assistance by not raising this ground in his administrative appeal (see, Matter of Wong v Coughlin, 138 A.D.2d 899; Matter of Price v Coughlin, 116 A.D.2d 898, 900). Were we to address the merits of petitioner's claim, we would find it without merit. Pursuant to petitioner's request, petitioner's assistant obtained documents and demonstrative evidence, including the relevant chapter of 7 N.Y.CRR. Petitioner's demand for the entire volume of 7 N.Y.CRR and his refusal to specify those portions which he desired in order to prepare his defense at his Tier III disciplinary proceeding were unreasonable. Moreover, he failed to establish any prejudice resulting from the failure to receive the entire volume (see, e.g., Matter of Law v Racette, 120 A.D.2d 846, 848).
Finally, there is no merit to petitioner's claim that respondent's regulations ( 7 NYCRR 254.7) do not satisfy the requirement of Correction Law § 138 (3) that facility rules "state the range of disciplinary sanctions which can be imposed for violation of each rule" (see, Matter of Coleman v Kelly, 72 N.Y.2d 850).