| Matter of Isaac v Fischer |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00419 [69 AD3d 1144] |
| January 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Darrel Isaac, Appellant, v Brian Fischer,as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered September 23,2009 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toCPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying hisgrievance.
As relevant to this appeal, petitioner was sentenced to a 12½-to-25-year prison term in1996 and received a consecutively running five-year sentence in 2000. Using such sentences asthe basis for its calculation (see Penal Law § 70.40 [1] [a] [iv]), the Department ofCorrectional Services provided petitioner with a legal date computation sheet indicating that hewould become eligible for parole on October 7, 2012. According to the computation sheet, thatdate was also the day on which petitioner would become eligible for conditional release.Asserting that he had not been provided with all of the good time credit to which he was entitled,petitioner filed an inmate grievance requesting that his legal date computation sheet be changedto reflect a conditional release date of December 7, 2011. The Central Office Review Committeedenied petitioner's request, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding.Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. "Judicial review of administrative decisions denying inmate grievances is limitedto a determination of whether the challenged determination is irrational, arbitrary or capricious"(Matter of Harty v Goord, 3 AD3d701, 702 [2004] [citation omitted]; Matter of Cliff v Brady, 290 AD2d 895, 896[2002], lv dismissed and denied 98 NY2d 642 [2002]). Here, in denying petitioner'srequest, the Central Office Review Committee relied on Penal Law § 70.40 (1) (b) (ii),which unequivocally provides that "in no event shall a person be conditionally released prior tothe date on which such person is first eligible for discretionary parole release." Accordingly,inasmuch as petitioner concedes that he will not become eligible for parole until October 7,2012, judicial intervention is not warranted (see generally Matter of Brooks v Alexander, 64 AD3d 1096, 1098[2009]; Matter of Lamberty v Schriver, 277 AD2d 527, 528 [2000]).
We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.