From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dudley v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2019
168 A.D.3d 1333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

526853

01-31-2019

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

Latiff Dudley, Gouverneur, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Latiff Dudley, Gouverneur, petitioner pro se.

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

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons 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 certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. 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 mandatory $ 5 surcharge was not taken out of petitioner's inmate account. The record establishes that the penalty imposed included loss of good time, and, although not referenced in the Attorney General's letter, we note that the loss of three months of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the determination should be restored (see Matter of Dallas v. Annucci, 160 A.D.3d 1325, 1325, 72 N.Y.S.3d 501 [2018] ; Matter of Harrison v. Annucci, 159 A.D.3d 1255, 1256, 70 N.Y.S.3d 102 [2018] ). Given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Brown v. Fischer, 148 A.D.3d 1383, 1384, 48 N.Y.S.3d 635 [2017] ). As the record reflects that petitioner had paid a reduced filing fee of $ 15 and he has requested reimbursement thereof, we grant petitioner's request for that amount.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $ 15.


Summaries of

Dudley v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2019
168 A.D.3d 1333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Dudley v. Annucci

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Jan 31, 2019

Citations

168 A.D.3d 1333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
91 N.Y.S.3d 734

Citing Cases

Dacey v. Annucci

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

Black v. Annucci

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