| Matter of Keesh v Smith |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01059 [59 AD3d 798] |
| February 11, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Tyheem Yefya Keesh, Appellant, v Joseph T.Smith, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hard, J.), entered January 17, 2008in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denyingpetitioner's grievance.
Petitioner, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, ordered twojogging suits from an outside vendor. When the jogging suits arrived at the facility and wereinspected, the tops thereto were classified as sweatshirts with zippers, which are prohibited underDepartment of Correctional Services Directive No. 4911(V) (Attachment D) (E) (4) (d).Petitioner thereafter filed a grievance contending, among other things, that he arbitrarily wasdenied the jogging suit tops based upon alleged religious discrimination. Ultimately, the CentralOffice Review Committee (hereinafter CORC) denied petitioner's grievance, prompting him tocommence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge that determination. Uponfinding no basis for petitioner's claim of religious discrimination, Supreme Court dismissed theapplication and this appeal ensued.[*2]
We affirm. In order to prevail, petitioner was required todemonstrate that CORC's determination was irrational or arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Williams v Goord, 41AD3d 1118 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 812 [2007]; Matter of Matos v Goord, 27 AD3d940, 941 [2006]). This he failed to do. Preliminarily, the record is bereft of any evidence tosupport petitioner's conclusory claims of religious discrimination. As to the substance of thegrievance, the cited directive plainly imposes a "no zippers" restriction upon sweatshirts andsweatpants (see Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4911 [V][Attachment D] [E] [4] [d]), and we perceive no irrationality in CORC's determination that ajogging suit top qualifies as a zippered sweatshirt. Petitioner's remaining contentions, to theextent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Cardona, P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.