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: James FULLWOOD, Appellant, v. Fred LAMY, as Commissioner for Policy and Compliance, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Malone Jr., J.), entered February 13, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.
Petitioner, an inmate, filed a grievance protesting the disallowance of his request for a copy of an investigative report which had been prepared in connection with a prior grievance that he had filed. The Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter CORC) denied petitioner's grievance and advised him that he was free to seek such a report via a Freedom of Information Law request. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his grievance. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal, and we affirm.
Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4040 section VI.J, in pertinent part, provides: “No grievance documents shall be disseminated to persons other than the grievant, a direct party, or an individual involved in the review process without the approval of the Grievance supervisor.” Petitioner argues that this language mandates that he be given a copy of the investigative report filed in connection with his previous grievance. CORC interprets this regulation as one addressing the confidentiality of files, not a mandate to turn over all documents in the file to the grievant. As we regard CORC's determination to be based upon a rational and reasonable interpretation of the directive, we defer to it (see Matter of Marzec v. DeBuono, 95 N.Y.2d 262, 266, 716 N.Y.S.2d 376, 739 N.E.2d 742 [2000]; Matter of Elcor Health Servs. v. Novello, 295 A.D.2d 772, 774, 744 N.Y.S.2d 71 [2002], affd. 100 N.Y.2d 273, 763 N.Y.S.2d 232, 794 N.E.2d 14 [2003] ). Petitioner's additional argument that this Court is bound by the principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata to follow an unreported decision of Supreme Court, Ulster County, is without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MUGGLIN, J.
CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CREW III and PETERS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 27, 2006
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)