superintendent for review, regardless of whether the inmate makes a formal appeal of that favorable action. 7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(a)(4)(vi). There is no similar procedure available for automatic advancement of a favorable ruling from the superintendent to the CORC. While the superintendent has a duty “to obtain verification of compliance with grievance decisions favorable to the inmate,” 7 N.Y.C.R.R. § 701.7(b)(7), DOCS regulations fail to provide inmates with further procedural recourse where the superintendent breaches that duty. Indeed, there is no mechanism in DOCS regulations that allows inmates to appeal a favorable decision where prison officials fail to implement that decision. See Kaplan v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 2000 WL 959728, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2000) (<HOLDING>); see generally 7 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 707.7(b)(7),
holding that the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted his administrative remedies in his complaint recognizing that officials failure timely to respond to grievance could be basis for prisoner to show he exhausted available administrative remedies holding that a texas prisoner who had not exhausted his clearly available administrative remedies was properly denied habeas relief in the district court holding prisoner who successfully appealed grievance had exhausted available administrative remedies even though he did not appeal the nonimplementation of the recommendation to the corc holding that a prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies even though his grievance was untimely