From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

91452

Decided and Entered: October 24, 2002.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Edwin Garcia, Wallkill, petitioner pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmates from possessing authorized articles in unauthorized areas. The Attorney General has advised this Court by letter that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is moot and the petition is dismissed (see Matter of Reynoso v. Goord, 294 A.D.2d 726).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

Garcia v. Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Garcia v. Department of Correctional Services

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EDWIN GARCIA, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL…

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

Date published: Oct 24, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 523

Citing Cases

In the Matter of the Stephens v. Parrott

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