From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Townsley v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 22, 2009
58 A.D.3d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 505134.

January 22, 2009.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Tayden Townsley, Romulus, petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ.


Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating several prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General, however, has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge imposed has been refunded to petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled and this matter must be dismissed as moot ( see Matter of Carroll v Fischer, 55 AD3d 1123).

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.


Summaries of

Townsley v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 22, 2009
58 A.D.3d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Townsley v. Fischer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TAYDEN TOWNSLEY, Petitioner, v. BRIAN FISCHER, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 22, 2009

Citations

58 A.D.3d 1048 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 289
870 N.Y.S.2d 811

Citing Cases

Mathie v. Yelich

Additionally, the Attorney General has confirmed that the mandatory surcharge was not deducted from…

In re Gregory Wright

The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively…