Matter of Vasquez v Fischer

Matter of Vasquez v Fischer 2015 NY Slip Op 03211 Decided on April 16, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: April 16, 2015
518996

[*1]In the Matter of MIGUEL VASQUEZ, Appellant,

v

BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

Miguel Vasquez, Beacon, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Elliott III, J.), entered May 7, 2014 in Greene 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 petitioner's grievance.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, filed a grievance challenging various aspects of the system implemented to discipline inmates (see Correction Law §§ 112 [1]; 137 [2]; 7 NYCRR 250.1 et seq.). The grievance was denied as unsubstantiated and, upon administrative review, the Central Office Review Committee upheld that denial. Petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding and, following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. In order to assert a valid grievance, "[a]n inmate must be personally affected by the policy or issue he/she is grieving, or must show that he/she will be personally affected by that policy or issue unless some relief is granted or changes made" (7 NYCRR 701.3 [b]). Petitioner did not point to any specific occasion in which he has been, or will be, impacted by the alleged failings in the disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Central Office Review Committee rationally determined that petitioner had not "substantiate[d] any malfeasance by staff" that would warrant the granting of relief (see Matter of Cliff v Brady, 290 AD2d 895, 896 [2002], lv dismissed and denied 98 NY2d 642 [2002]). To the extent that the grievance reflects petitioner's generalized dissatisfaction with the disciplinary process, such does not present a justiciable controversy (see Matter of Justice v Fischer, 74 AD3d 1648, 1649 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d [*2]710 [2010]; Matter of Cliff v Brady, 290 AD2d at 896).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.