Calendar Date: February 28, 2017
Brooks, Attica, appellant pro se.
T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet
of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered
June 1, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed
petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to
CPLR article 78, to review determinations of the Central
Office Review Committee denying two grievances.
an inmate at Wyoming Correctional Facility, filed a grievance
in which, among other things, he requested a transfer to
Woodbourne Correctional Facility, which he described as a
"mostly indoor facility." Petitioner asserted that
the transfer was needed because he is 76 years old and has
multiple medical conditions, including a documented severe
vision disability, arthritis and bursitis in his knees and
susceptibility to cold temperatures. He also requested
immediate medical attention and kosher meals. The Inmate
Grievance Resolution Committee found that petitioner's
medical needs were considered prior to his transfer to
Wyoming, that he had seen a doctor at the facility and was
given a permit for housing to accommodate his health problems
and that he should sign up for sick call if he needed further
medical attention. On appeal, the facility superintendent
affirmed and the Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter
CORC) upheld that determination, finding that petitioner was
appropriately housed at Wyoming, that his medical needs and
required accommodations were documented in his records and
were being addressed at recent or upcoming doctor
appointments, and that his meal request had been approved.
CORC also found no evidence of inadequate care or wrongdoing.
filed a second grievance requesting permission to wear larger
"big boy" handcuffs on trips outside the facility,
asserting that he had previously been permitted to wear them
with the bilateral wrist braces that he wears for medical
reasons. CORC ultimately denied the grievance, relying on the
recommendation of the Division of Health Services and on the
conclusion of petitioner's medical provider that larger
cuffs were not medically necessary at that time. CORC also
noted that he had permission to remove the braces for outside
trips in order to apply handcuffs and could request a permit
for larger handcuffs for outside trips when and if needed.
Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding
challenging CORC's determinations. Finding that the
denial of the grievances was not irrational, Supreme Court
dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
affirm. "[J]udicial 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" (Matter of Barnes v
Bellamy, 137 A.D.3d 1391, 1392 ; accord Matter
of Sinclair v Annucci, 137 A.D.3d 1385, 1386 ,
lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 909');">27 N.Y.3d 909 ). With regard to
petitioner's request for a transfer to a specific
facility, respondent has broad discretion in deciding whether
to transfer inmates from one correctional facility to
another, and an inmate has no right to be housed at any
particular facility (see Correction Law § 23
; Matter of Muggelberg v Annucci, 131 A.D.3d
1312, 1313 ). The record supports the determination
that petitioner is appropriately housed at Wyoming, which is
designated in Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision Directive No. 2612, § III (C) (8) as a
facility that can accommodate his severe visual impairment,
and that his medical needs have been accommodated and are
we find that petitioner's second grievance was rationally
denied based upon the opinion of his medical provider that
larger handcuffs were not then needed and that his needs
could be accommodated by removing his wrist braces to apply
handcuffs (see Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of
Correctional Servs., 15 N.Y.3d 275, 280 ). While
petitioner challenged that opinion, he submitted no contrary
evidence and there was nothing arbitrary about requiring him
to apply for and obtain a permit for larger handcuffs based
upon current medical needs, when and if the need arises.
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined
and, to the extent that they have been preserved, we find
that they lack merit.
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and ...