| Matter of Cullum v Goord |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09463 [45 AD3d 1212] |
| November 29, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jeffrey Cullum, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondents.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sackett, J.), entered September 8,2006 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, grantedrespondents' motion to dismiss the petition.
In 2005, petitioner, a prison inmate, was determined to be ineligible for temporary workrelease due to a tier III conviction for absconding from temporary work release in 1989. Onadministrative appeal, petitioner was informed that eligibility determinations were not appealableand his prior tier III conviction prevented his participation in the work release program. Based onhis belief that the 1989 tier III conviction had been rescinded, petitioner subsequently submitted aFreedom of Information Law (see Public Officers Law art 6 [hereinafter FOIL]) requestfor copies of his records from 1989. Petitioner was informed that a majority of the records herequested either did not exist or were no longer available. He thereafter commenced this CPLRarticle 78 proceeding in April 2006, contending that his records concerning the 1989 tier IIIconviction were erroneous and seeking review of his FOIL request. Supreme Court dismissed thepetition, resulting in this appeal.
Although it is now clear that petitioner challenges the accuracy of the records upon [*2]which he was found to be ineligible for work release, that portion ofhis petition seeking to correct those records was properly dismissed by Supreme Court. Petitionerhad available to him the procedure afforded by 7 NYCRR 5.50 to seek administrative review andcorrection of the allegedly erroneous records. In addition, if the requested correction were notmade, 7 NYCRR 5.52 would provide petitioner with an administrative appeal. Since nothing inpetitioner's papers shows that he pursued such a course, his petition is subject to dismissal forfailure to exhaust his administrative remedies (see Matter of Mauleon v Goord, 29 AD3d 1241, 1241-1242 [2006];Matter of Raqiyb v New York State Div. of Parole, 247 AD2d 684, 684 [1998]).
As for petitioner's FOIL request, however, respondents' failure to inform petitioner of hisright to an administrative appeal (see 21 NYCRR 1401.7 [b]) negates the argument thathe failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (see Matter of Barrett v Morgenthau, 74NY2d 907, 909 [1989]; Matter of Pennington v Clark, 307 AD2d 756, 757 [2003];Matter of Rivette v District Attorney of Rensselaer County, 272 AD2d 648, 649 [2000]).Accordingly, Supreme Court should have considered this portion of the petition on its merits.
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified,on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as dismissed that part of the petitionseeking review of petitioner's Freedom of Information Law request; matter remitted to theSupreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, as somodified, affirmed.