Opinion
September 17, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chemung County (Monserrate, J.).
Even were we to assume that petitioner is correct in arguing that he did not receive notification of the denial of his appeal of his designation as a central monitoring case within 15 days pursuant to 7 NYCRR 1000.5 (b), it is clear that petitioner did receive a copy of the decision at the time of respondents' answer. Respondents concede that the administrative appeal process is still open to petitioner; thus, petitioner must first exhaust those procedures (see, Matter of Alevras v Coughlin, 87 A.D.2d 868; cf., Matter of Valvano v Jones, 122 A.D.2d 336). The same reasoning applies to petitioner's allegation that he was not informed of the second step in the appeal process. Finally, any argument by petitioner that the regulatory procedure for review of central monitoring case designations violates due process lacks merit (see, Matter of Whitehead v Jones, 172 A.D.2d 887).
Weiss, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.