Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In the Matter of Felix v. Dale Artus

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department


March 22, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF FELIX DELGADO, APPELLANT,
v.
DALE ARTUS, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered September 7, 2010 in Albany 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.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garry, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date: February 8, 2012

Before: Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, originally commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a grievance he filed claiming that a negative performance evaluation was placed in his parole file in retaliation for filing a complaint against prison officials. Supreme Court (Donohue, J.) dismissed the proceeding on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, however, this Court reversed and remitted the matter for a disposition on the merits (56 AD3d 1067, 1067 [2008]). Upon that review, Supreme Court (McNamara, J.) concluded that the denial of the grievance was not irrational and dismissed the petition. This appeal ensued and we affirm.

Notably, our scope of review in matters such as this "is limited to whether the denial of petitioner's grievance[] was irrational, arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law" (Matter of Rivera v Fischer, 67 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2009]). Here, the record, including the confidential information submitted for our in camera review, confirms that a thorough investigation of petitioner's claims was conducted and they were determined to be unsubstantiated. Under these circumstances, we find no basis to conclude that the denial of the grievance must be overturned (see Matter of Davis v Burge, 55 AD3d 1162, 1162 [2008]).

Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

20120322

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.