| Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of CorrectionalServs. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02868 [61 AD3d 1189] |
| April 16, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Robert Wooley, Appellant, v New York StateDepartment of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.), entered January 30, 2008 inAlbany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying hisgrievance.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging thedenial of a grievance he filed seeking to compel facility medical personnel to provide him withcertain medication he deemed necessary to treat his hepatitis C. Supreme Court dismissedpetitioner's application finding, among other things, that the denial of the grievance was rational.This appeal by petitioner ensued.
We affirm. Although petitioner's treating physicians were of the view that placing petitioneron a maintenance dose of the drug in question "would be a reasonable strategy to stave offprogression" of his disease, they also readily acknowledged that this approach was not approvedby the Food and Drug Administration and there were no long-term studies to document theeffectiveness of this treatment—facts that were confirmed by the drug's manufacturer.Based upon our review of the record as a whole, and in light of the experimental nature of theproposed treatment, we cannot say that respondent's refusal to prescribe the requestedmedication was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law (see Matter of Raqiybv Goord, 28 AD3d [*2]892, 893 [2006]). Nor are wepersuaded that, in so doing, respondent "evince[d] a deliberate indifference to [petitioner's]serious medical needs" (Matter of Singh v Eagen, 236 AD2d 654, 655 [1997]; see Matter of Scott v Goord, 32 AD3d638, 639 [2006]; People ex rel. Sandson v Duncan, 306 AD2d 716, 717 [2003],lv denied 1 NY3d 501 [2003]). Accordingly, petitioner failed to demonstrate a violationof his 8th Amendment rights. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and arewithout merit.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.