RECEIPT SHOWED THAT ITEM DIDN’T EXCEED THE PRICE LIMIT SET BY PRISON SYSTEM
When a package containing his sneakers was withheld from him because they purportedly exceeded an $80 maximum value which was then in effect for clothing (including footwear), inmate AA filed a grievance. The Inmate Grievance Review Committee ended up denying same, because the item was believed to have a value above the threshold set by Directive No. 4911. After an administrative appeal, when the denial was upheld, AA filed a special proceeding [pursuant to CPLR Article 78] with Albany County Supreme Court.
When a judge dismissed his petition, AA appealed, and on its review of the record, the Appellate Division, Third Department, noted that the Directive provided that “the value of an article shall be the actual purchase price, not including any tax, shipping or handling" (Dept of Corr & Community Supervision Directive No. 4911 § III [A] [4]).”
While the facility’s personnel found the item online for $110 to $140, that analysis wasn’t entirely dispositive. Given that he had a $71 receipt, and that document wasn’t shown to be inauthentic, the AD3 thought it was “arbitrary and capricious” for the prison system to have denied AA’s grievance.
As a result, the order dismissing his Article 78 proceeding was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the Central Office Review Committee for further proceedings.
Does that make AA a sneakerhead?
# # #
DECISION