Opinion
2012-01-5
In the Matter of William PRIDE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Respondent.
William Pride, Comstock, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.
William Pride, Comstock, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered January 5, 2011 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was convicted in 1987 of various crimes including two counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 16 2/3 to 40 years. In 2004, petitioner was informed that he was required to participate in a revised Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (hereinafter ASAT) program. In response, petitioner filed two grievances, one each in 2004 and 2005, challenging the factual basis for requiring his participation in the ASAT program and alleging that a correction counselor placed a falsified document in his file. Those grievances were ultimately denied by the Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter CORC) and petitioner failed to take an appeal from either determination. Thereafter, in 2009, petitioner filed another grievance, at issue here, alleging that an August 2009 memorandum from the acting deputy of programs was protecting certain prison employees who had created false documents and placed them in petitioner's file in retaliation for filing past grievances. In addition, petitioner's grievance requested that he be reassessed for a transfer that he claimed he was being denied based upon the purportedly false documents. That grievance was also ultimately denied by CORC, and petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Our review of a determination denying a prison grievance is limited to whether it was irrational or arbitrary and capricious ( see Matter of Abreu v. Fischer, 87 A.D.3d 1213, 930 N.Y.S.2d 289 [2011]; Matter of Hernandez v. Fischer, 79 A.D.3d 1544, 1546, 917 N.Y.S.2d 714 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 710, 2011 WL 1584763 [2011] ). Here, the record demonstrates that petitioner's complaints were investigated thoroughly by the deputy superintendent of programs, and all of the statements made in the August 2009 memorandum were amply supported by documentation. Similarly, based upon petitioner's records that reflect that he has failed to successfully complete the recommended ASAT program, the denial of his request for a transfer is not arbitrary and capricious ( see Matter of Salahuddin v. Goord, 64 A.D.3d 1091, 1092, 882 N.Y.S.2d 772 [2009]; Matter of Lugo v. Goord, 49 A.D.3d 1114, 1114, 853 N.Y.S.2d 747 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 714, 861 N.Y.S.2d 274, 891 N.E.2d 309 [2008] ). Finally, to the extent that petitioner's grievance requested an investigation into certain documents in his file, he was correctly advised by CORC of the proper procedure to challenge their accuracy ( see 7 NYCRR 5.50, 5.51, 5.52; Matter of Salahuddin v. Goord, 64 A.D.3d at 1092, 882 N.Y.S.2d 772; Matter of Rivera v. Selsky, 49 A.D.3d 1115, 856 N.Y.S.2d 893 [2008] ).
To the extent that petitioner seeks to again challenge CORC's 2004 and 2005 determinations regarding his participation in the ASAT program, such challenge is time-barred.
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.