IN RE: ELVIS CASTILLO

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

IN RE: ELVIS CASTILLO, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

CA 14–01443

Decided: November 20, 2015

PRESENT:  SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. WYOMING COUNTY–ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FREDERICK A. BRODIE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent's denial of two inmate grievances he filed while he was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility and Upstate Correctional Facility.  Because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.  “It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law” (Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57;  see Matter of Bennefield v. Annucci, 122 AD3d 1329, 1331).  Moreover, there is no basis in the record for us to conclude that exhaustion is not required because “pursuit of the administrative [process] would have been futile” (People ex rel. Martinez v. Beaver, 8 AD3d 1095, 1095).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court