Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging Directive 4933 of the Department of Correctional Services (7 N.Y.CRR ch VI) as being violative of his right to due process under the US and NY Constitutions. Initially, we find that petitioner's application is legally insufficient because it contains only vague and conclusory allegations without any underlying support establishing how he was deprived of anything (see, Matter of Barnes v LaVallee, 39 N.Y.2d 721, 722-723; Matter of Malik v Berlinland, 158 A.D.2d 836, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 704). Even if we were to consider the petition, this court has recently upheld the constitutionality of this directive (Matter of Malik v Coughlin, 157 A.D.2d 961). In any event, the daily review of deprivation orders ( 7 NYCRR 305.2 [c]), the availability of the inmate grievance program ( 7 NYCRR 304.14) and the fact that an inmate has a judicial remedy to challenge deprivation orders under CPLR article 78 clearly provide due process of law.
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.