Rizzuto v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 21 April 2022
• Docket Number: 533003
• Citation: 204 A.D.3d 1275,165 N.Y.S.3d 386 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of Alfonso RIZZUTO, Appellant, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

204 A.D.3d 1275
165 N.Y.S.3d 386 (Mem)

In the Matter of Alfonso RIZZUTO, Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

533003

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: March 21, 2022
Decided and Entered: April 21, 2022

Alfonso Rizzuto, New York City, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Beezly Kiernan of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J.

204 A.D.3d 1275

165 N.Y.S.3d 387

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McGrath, J.), entered February 11, 2021 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review determinations denying six grievances.

Petitioner is an incarcerated person who began serving a prison term in May 2017 upon his conviction of burglary in the second degree ( People v. Rizzuto, 167 A.D.3d 531, 90 N.Y.S.3d 166 [2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 980, 101 N.Y.S.3d 249, 124 N.E.3d 738 [2019] ). He thereafter filed 66 inmate grievances over the ensuing 13 months, many voluminous and duplicative of earlier grievances. After repeated warnings and guidance regarding the proper use of the grievance procedure (see 7 NYCRR part 701), petitioner was notified by letter dated June 18, 2018 that, due to his bad faith abuse of the grievance process, he would be permitted no more than two grievances per week; that restriction was thereafter extended several times at successive correctional facilities to which he was moved, based upon his continued misuse of the grievance process. As relevant here, petitioner filed six grievances complaining about, among other things, the grievance restrictions, which were denied by the Central Office Review Committee.¹ In March 2020, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of the six grievances. Respondents filed an answer and petitioner filed a reply. Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the petition, finding, among other things, that

204 A.D.3d 1276 ...