From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hinds v. Venettozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 30, 2009
64 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 505249.

July 30, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered June 27, 2008 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Curtis Hinds, Elmira, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Peters, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur.


Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of a false alarm. The Attorney General advises this Court that the administrative determination at issue has been reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record. Accordingly, petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and this matter is therefore dismissed as moot ( see Matter of Hart v Fischer, 60 AD3d 1226; Matter of York v Fischer, 55 AD3d 1096).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.


Summaries of

Hinds v. Venettozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 30, 2009
64 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Hinds v. Venettozzi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CURTIS HINDS, Appellant, v. D. VENETTOZZI, as Director of…

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

Date published: Jul 30, 2009

Citations

64 A.D.3d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 6054
882 N.Y.S.2d 666

Citing Cases

In re Mercer

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

In re James Watson

The Attorney General advises us that, during the pendency of this appeal, the determination at issue was…