From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In Matter Woodall v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 29, 2004
6 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94105.

Decided and Entered April 29, 2004.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sheridan, J.), entered April 30, 2003 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered September 15, 2003 in Albany County, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Bryan Woodall, Elmira, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner, a transgendered individual, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking review of a determination denying a request for female garments. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration. These appeals ensued.

Although a review of the record reveals that petitioner submitted numerous letters written to various correction facility personnel regarding the denial of the grievance, the letters of complaint are insufficient to establish that petitioner complied with the grievance procedure process (see Matter of Boddie v. Goord, 307 A.D.2d 555,appeal dismissed, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 589). In addition, an affidavit from the Inmate Grievance Program Supervisor confirms that no appeal from the instant grievance was received. Having failed to exhaust the administrative remedies through the available grievance procedures or establish any exceptions thereto (see 7 NYCRR part 701), dismissal of the petition was warranted (see Matter of Allen v. Goord, 4 A.D.3d 635; Matter of Miller v. Croce, 290 A.D.2d 662; Matter of Johnson v. Ricks, 278 A.D.2d 559, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 710). Furthermore, the denial of petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration will not be disturbed (see Matter of Pittman v. Portuondo, 307 A.D.2d 485; Matter of Suarez v. Filion, 281 A.D.2d 743, 744).

Cardona P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In Matter Woodall v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 29, 2004
6 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In Matter Woodall v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN WOODALL, Appellant, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Apr 29, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 600

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Muniz v. David

Moreover, although the record contains various letters that petitioner wrote complaining about his transfer,…

Fernandez v. Goord

Although petitioner initially availed himself of the administrative appeal procedure by appealing the denial…