Opinion
April 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Hughes, J.).
On this appeal, petitioner argues that his designation as a central monitoring case was arbitrary and capricious. However, upon his request for review, concise and adequate explanations were given for his designation (see, 7 NYCRR 1000.5; People ex rel. Williams v. Ward, 73 A.D.2d 941). Furthermore, the contention that the procedure for designating a central monitoring case violates due process has previously been rejected by this court (see, Matter of Ramirez v. Ward, 64 A.D.2d 995; see also, People ex rel. Williams v. Ward, supra). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Mikoll, Levine, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.