From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of McGee v. Recore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 2, 2000
277 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 2, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (La Buda, J.), entered March 3, 2000 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's application for temporary release.

Russell McGee, Fallsburg, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (David Lawrence III of counsel), New York City, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner, a prison inmate, applied to participate in a temporary release program. Although noting petitioner's positive disciplinary history, his application for participation in the temporary release program was nevertheless denied based upon his three felony convictions, his history of recidivism and his refusal to participate in a substance abuse program, all of which rendered petitioner a risk to the community. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner's application for CPLR article 78 review and this appeal ensued.

We reject petitioner's contention that respondent's determination denying his application was arbitrary and capricious. Initially, we note that an inmate's participation in a temporary release program is a privilege (see, Correction Law § 855) and our review is limited to whether the determination violates any positive statutory requirement or constitutional right or whether it was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety (see, Matter of Peana v. Recore, 257 A.D.2d 862;Matter of Williams v. Recore, 251 A.D.2d 833). Inasmuch as petitioner has failed to establish that the denial of his application for temporary release was affected by a statutory or constitutional violation and the record establishes that respondent considered not only his criminal convictions but other appropriate factors, including his positive disciplinary record, we find no reason to disturb the determination despite some evidence of his participation in substance abuse programs (see, id.).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of McGee v. Recore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 2, 2000
277 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of McGee v. Recore

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RUSSELL McGEE, Appellant, v. JAMES F. RECORE, as Director…

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

Date published: Nov 2, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 621

Citing Cases

Mottshaw v. Joy

Supreme Court thereafter dismissed his application to review this determination, prompting this appeal. It is…

Martin v. Goord

Initially, inasmuch as the July 18, 2001 determination denying petitioner's application for participation in…