Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Faris ABDUL-MATIYN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered May 9, 1996 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review two determinations of respondent denying petitioner's two grievances.
Petitioner, an inmate at Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of grievances he filed concerning his right to sufficient privacy and confidentiality when attending sick call and his entitlement to meals in conformance with his religious beliefs. Supreme Court, rejecting petitioner's contention that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious, dismissed the petition. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. The record discloses that the Department of Correctional Services addressed petitioner's first grievance by issuing a directive stating that utmost care should be taken to provide inmates with privacy and confidentiality in connection with medical treatment and, in fact, that screens are currently provided to ensure privacy (see, e.g., Matter of Singh v. Eagen, 236 A.D.2d 654, 653 N.Y.S.2d 434). We also reject petitioner's challenge to the denial of his grievance regarding his dietary demands inasmuch as the budgetary and administrative concerns of the Department of Correctional Services provide a rational basis for respondent's determination (see, Matter of Bunny v. Coughlin, 187 A.D.2d 119, 123, 593 N.Y.S.2d 354, appeal dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 679, 601 N.Y.S.2d 567, 619 N.E.2d 645). In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the determinations denying petitioner's grievances were neither arbitrary nor capricious.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 11, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)