need not be ‘perfect’ or the one ‘most strongly preferred’ by the [ jplaintiff, but it still must be ‘effective[.]’ ” Id. (quoting Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 787 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2015)). Determining the “reasonableness of an •[] accommodation is a ‘fact-specific’ question that often must be resolved by a factfinder.” Noll, 787 F.3d at 94 (internal quotation omitted). A defendant is “entitled to summary judgment only if the undisputed record reveals that the plaintiff was accorded a ‘plainly reasonable’ accommodation.” Dean, 804 F.3d at 189 (quoting Noll, 787 F.3d at 94). 1. Reasonableness of DOCCS’s accommodation A reasonable accommodation must provide effective access to prison activities and programs. See, e.g., Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 858 (8th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>). That is, the accommodation must overcome
holding that although prison inmates have a first amendment right to access to the courts prison officials may regulate law library access including reasonable time place and manner of access taking into account the administrative needs of the institution holding plaintiff must prove that he or she was deprived of  an opportunity  granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient holding that inmates have no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in access to grievance procedure holding a deaf inmates limited participation in activities does not support a finding that although he did not have an interpreter he enjoyed meaningful access