Matter of Vasquez v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Vasquez v. Fischer

127 A.D.3d 1441, 5 N.Y.S.3d 737

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 16, 2015

Docket518996

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1441 (Matter of Vasquez v. Fischer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Vasquez v. Fischer, 127 A.D.3d 1441, 5 N.Y.S.3d 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *1442 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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *1442 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 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 1441, 5 N.Y.S.3d 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-vasquez-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack