| Matter of Patel v Fischer |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08131 [67 AD3d 1193] |
| November 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Vinod Patel, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Julie S. Mereson of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), entered April 7, 2009 inAlbany 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, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging adetermination of the Central Office Review Committee which denied his grievance requestingthat he be provided with a strict vegetarian diet, in accordance with his religious beliefs andmedical condition. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. To prevail, petitioner must demonstrate that the Central Office ReviewCommittee's determination was arbitrary and capricious or without a rational basis (see Matter of Keesh v Smith, 59 AD3d798, 798 [2009]; Matter of Matos vGoord, 27 AD3d 940, 941 [2006]). Petitioner has failed to make the necessary showing.As relevant here, Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4202 directs that inmatesmay refrain from eating foods that are contrary to their religious beliefs and are to be provided anutritionally adequate religious alternative menu upon validation of their religious needs. Therecord reveals that petitioner was provided a religious alternative menu. Petitioner contends,however, that at times this menu contains fish, eggs and chicken, which is against his religiousbelief in a strict vegetarian diet. In rebuttal, respondent submitted an affidavit from the AssistantDirector of the Department of Correctional Services Office of Nutritional Services, a [*2]registered dietician, who opined that if petitioner eats the foodoffered in the religious alternative menu, but omits the poultry, fish and egg portions, he will stillbe eating a nutritionally adequate diet. Respondent also submitted an affidavit from the physicianassigned to petitioner's correctional facility who, based on a review of petitioner's medicalrecords and the results of tests performed on petitioner, opined that there is no medical reason forchanging petitioner's diet. Accordingly, as the record supports a finding that petitioner is alreadybeing provided with a diet that is nutritionally adequate without requiring him to compromise hisreligious beliefs or affecting any medical condition, the denial of his grievance requesting adifferent diet cannot be characterized as irrational or arbitrary and capricious.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Kane, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.