By petition pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR verified on January 15, 2014, Frank Garcia seeks review of the November 25, 2013, determination upholding the denial of his application for participation in the Family Reunion Program ["FRP"]. Petitioner is represented by counsel assigned by the order to the show cause dated March 3, 2014. Respondent requests that the petition be denied or dismissed upon the answer of Benjamin K. Ahlstrom, Assistant Attorney General, dated April 29, 2014. Petitioner's counsel has also filed a reply to the answer dated May 12, 2014.

The petition is without merit. "Participation in the family reunion program is not a right, but a privilege, and the decision about whether an inmate may participate is 'heavily discretionary' and will be upheld if it has a rational basis" (Matter of Philips v. Commissioner of Correctional Services, 65 AD3d 1407, 1408 [3rd Dept., 2009], quoting Matter of Doe v. Coughlin, 71 NY2d 48 [1987], cert. denied 488 U.S. 879 [1988] [citations omitted]; Matter of Rodriguez v. Morris, 113 AD3d 1011 [3rd Dept., 2014]). Thus, since the determination challenged in this case does not lack a rational basis, it must be upheld. Moreover, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the fact that the 2013 determination reached a different conclusion regarding his FRP participation from that apparently reached in an earlier determination made in November of 2011 did not render 2013 determination arbitrary and capricious. As the petitioner acknowledges in his petition, his 2013 FRP application differed from his earlier application in [*2]that in 2013 he requested to include two additional family members. This change required that the application be subjected to a "full-cycle" discretionary review (7 NYCRR §§220.4, 220.6). In completing that discretionary review, the respondent was not bound by the prior determination (Phillips, supra). Lastly, contrary to the contention of petitioner's counsel, the record before the Court does not establish that erroneous information served as a basis for the challenged determination. The petitioner's other claims have been considered and have also been found to be without merit.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED that the determination is confirmed and the petition is dismissed.