| Matter of Fowler v Fischer |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06348 [98 AD3d 1212] |
| September 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jamarr Fowler, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, asCommissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision,Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered January 18,2012 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toCPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent withholding petitioner's good timeallowance.
In July 2008, petitioner was convicted of rape in the second degree and sentenced, as asecond felony offender, to 3½ to 7 years in prison. Shortly before his conditional releasedate, the Time Allowance Committee recommended that all of petitioner's good time allowancebe withheld until his completion of a sex offender program, which recommendation was affirmedby respondent. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 proceedingchallenging respondent's determination and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Whether to withhold an inmate's good time allowance is a discretionarydetermination and is not subject to judicial review "as long as it is made in accordance with [the]law and is based upon a review of [the] inmate's entire institutional record" (Matter of Torres v Durbray, 64 AD3d1027, 1027 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 709 [2009] [internal quotation marks andcitations omitted]). Here, the record establishes that petitioner's complete institutional record,including his program completions and disciplinary record, was considered in [*2]withholding his good time allowance. His record established,among other things, that he had not completed a required sex offender program, which relates tothe specific conduct that resulted in petitioner's incarceration (see Matter of Maxson v Fischer, 61 AD3d 1192, 1192-1193[2009]; Matter of Benjamin v New YorkState Dept. of Correctional Servs., 19 AD3d 832, 833 [2005]). Inasmuch as thisprovides a rational basis for respondent's determination, Supreme Court properly dismissed thepetition.
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.