Petitioner now appeals. We affirm. "Judicial review of the denial of an inmate grievance is limited to whether such determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or affected by an error of law" ( Matter of Nunez v. Central Off. Review Comm., 126 A.D.3d 1248, 1249, 6 N.Y.S.3d 688 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618899 [2015] ; see Matter of Barnes v. Bellamy, 137 A.D.3d 1391, 1392, 27 N.Y.S.3d 703 [2016] ; Matter of Sinclair v. Annucci, 137 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 27 N.Y.S.3d 701 [2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 909, 2016 WL 3248583 [2016] ). Directive No. 4421, codified as 7 NYCRR 721.2, provides, in relevant part, that, "notwithstanding that a county clerk may also be a clerk of a court, mail from a county clerk shall be processed as general incoming correspondence." The record reflects that each of petitioner's letters was mailed from a county clerk's office.
Following service of respondent's answer, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals. Initially, we note that judicial review of respondent's determination is limited to whether it is "arbitrary or capricious, without a rational basis or affected by an error of law" (Matter of Barnes v. Bellamy, 137 A.D.3d 1391, 1392, 27 N.Y.S.3d 703 [2016] ; see Matter of Nunez v. Central Off. Review Comm., 126 A.D.3d 1248, 1249, 6 N.Y.S.3d 688 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618899 [2015] ). Here, inasmuch as the denial of petitioner's request for specific legal treatises was based on the absence of this material from the law library, it was not arbitrary, capricious or irrational (see Matter of Ramsey v. Fischer, 93 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 940 N.Y.S.2d 350 [2012], lv. dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 955, 950 N.Y.S.2d 102, 973 N.E.2d 200 [2012] ).
y the Attorney General, in the event that petitioner has paid any or all of the $80 imposed as restitution, that amount must be refunded to his inmate account (see Matter of Jones v. Fischer, 113 A.D.3d 1014, 1014, 978 N.Y.S.2d 924 [2014]; Matter of Jiminez v. Fischer, 107 A.D.3d 1254, 1254–1255, 966 N.Y.S.2d 924 [2013]; see also Matter of Moreno v. Prack, 130 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 10 N.Y.S.3d 916 [2015] ). Otherwise, inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, that portion of the petition challenging the disciplinary determinations is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Rizzuto v. Prack, 134 A.D.3d 1263, 1263, 19 N.Y.S.3d 916 [2015]; Matter of Warmus v. Kaplan, 133 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 18 N.Y.S.3d 897 [2015] ). With respect to the determinations denying petitioner's grievances, judicial review of the denial of an inmate grievance is limited to whether such a determination was arbitrary or capricious, without a rational basis or affected by an error of law (see Matter of Nunez v. Central Off. Review Comm., 126 A.D.3d 1248, 1249, 6 N.Y.S.3d 688 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618899 [2015]; Matter of Shoga v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1180, 1180, 997 N.Y.S.2d 788 [2014] ). Here, the record, including the confidential information submitted for our in camera review, confirms that a thorough investigation of petitioner's claims was conducted by prison officials, and we find no basis to suggest that CORC's determinations were irrational (see Matter of Shoga v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d at 1180–1181, 997 N.Y.S.2d 788). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
We affirm. Judicial review of the denial of an inmate grievance is limited to whether such a determination was arbitrary or capricious, without a rational basis or affected by an error of law (see Matter of Nunez v. Central Off. Review Comm., 126 A.D.3d 1248, 1249, 6 N.Y.S.3d 688 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618899 [2015]; Matter of Shoga v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1180, 1180, 997 N.Y.S.2d 788 [2014]; Matter of Hutchinson v. Fischer, 112 A.D.3d 1245, 1245, 977 N.Y.S.2d 506 [2013], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 1884899 [2014] ). Here, the record, including the confidential information submitted for our in camera review, confirms that a thorough and procedurally adequate investigation of petitioner's claims was conducted (see 7 NYCRR 701.4[d]; 701.6[e] ), and we find no basis in the record to suggest that CORC's determination that petitioner's allegations were unsubstantiated was irrational.
We modify. Judicial review of the denial of an inmate grievance is limited to whether such a determination was arbitrary or capricious, without a rational basis or affected by an error of law (see Matter of Nunez v. Central Off. Review Comm., 126 A.D.3d 1248, 1249, 6 N.Y.S.3d 688 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618899 [2015] ; Matter of Shoga v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1180, 1180, 997 N.Y.S.2d 788 [2014] ; Matter of Hutchinson v. Fischer, 112 A.D.3d 1245, 1245, 977 N.Y.S.2d 506 [2013], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 1884899 [2014] ). If "the determination is supported by a rational basis, [this Court] must sustain the determination even if [we] concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency" (Matter of Wooley v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 N.Y.3d 275, 280, 907 N.Y.S.2d 741, 934 N.E.2d 310 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Here, we find no basis in the record to suggest that CORC's determination was irrational insofar as it found that there was no policy, unwritten or otherwise, to deny accurate performance on inmate evaluations in the tailor shop or that there was an outstanding safety problem with the lack of guards on the sewing machines.
We affirm. “ ‘Judicial review of the denial of an inmate grievance is limited to whether such determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or affected by an error of law’ ” (Matter of Nunez v. Central Off. Review Comm., 126 A.D.3d 1248, 1249, 6 N.Y.S.3d 688 2015, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618899 2015, quoting Matter of Hutchinson v. Fischer, 112 A.D.3d 1245, 1245, 977 N.Y.S.2d 506 2013, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 903, 2014 WL 1884899 2014 [citations omitted] ). If the determination is rationally supported by the record, “courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or to choose among alternatives ” (Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 N.Y.3d 219, 232, 851 N.Y.S.2d 76, 881 N.E.2d 172 2007 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Dugan v. Liggan, 121 A.D.3d 1471, 1473, 995 N.Y.S.2d 799 2014; see Matter of Harrison v. Selsky, 2 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 768 N.Y.S.2d 856 2003 ).
Notably, 42 U.S.C. 12211(b)(1)“expressly defined disability in a way that excludes transexualism” (Rentos v. Oce–Office Systems,1996 WL 737215 [S.D.N.Y.1996]). Lastly, with respect to petitioner's allegations that DOCCS' staff failed to act on her complaints of sexual harassment, CORC correctly concluded that she failed to present sufficient evidence to support these allegations (Nunez v. Central Office Review Committee,126 A.D.3d 1248 [3d Dept.2015]). In the petition, she acknowledges that staff did take steps when she reported the abuse at the hands of a “known predator”, including moving the inmate to another company.