From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duchnowski v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 4, 2019
168 A.D.3d 1301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

526740

01-04-2019

In the Matter of Leo DUCHNOWSKI, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Leo Duchnowski, Romulus, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Leo Duchnowski, Romulus, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Devine, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENTProceeding 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. We note that the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the disciplinary proceeding should be restored (see Matter of Hogan v. Annucci, 162 A.D.3d 1418, 1418, 75 N.Y.S.3d 922 [2018], appeal dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1001, 86 N.Y.S.3d 759, 111 N.E.3d 1115 [2018] ). Inasmuch as petitioner has been granted all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Boeck v. Annucci, 165 A.D.3d 1334, 1334, 82 N.Y.S.3d 748 [2018] ; Matter of Little v. Lee, 164 A.D.3d 1559, 1560, 81 N.Y.S.3d 770 [2018] ). Whether the time that petitioner spent in keeplock as a result of the instant disciplinary determination was properly credited toward his confinement in connection with other unrelated disciplinary matters is not properly before us in this proceeding (see 7 NYCRR part 5; Matter of Barclay v. Summers, 60 A.D.3d 1181, 1181, 873 N.Y.S.2d 921 [2009] ).

Garry, P.J., Devine, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Duchnowski v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 4, 2019
168 A.D.3d 1301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Duchnowski v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Leo DUCHNOWSKI, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 4, 2019

Citations

168 A.D.3d 1301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
90 N.Y.S.3d 570

Citing Cases

Telesford v. Annucci

As the letter indicates that petitioner has yet to be refunded the mandatory $5 surcharge (see 7 NYCRR 253.7…

Patterson v. Rodriguez

To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary…