From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ronald Rivers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 5, 2009
67 A.D.3d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 506633.

November 5, 2009.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered February 11, 2009 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

Ronald Rivers, Elmira, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur.


Petitioner, serving a prison sentence of 20 years to life upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a January 2007 determination of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release. The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Board in August 2008 at which time his request for parole release was again denied. In view of petitioner's reappearance, the instant appeal is moot and must be dismissed ( see Matter of Alvarez v New York State Div. of Parole, 63 AD3d 1402; Matter of Johnson v New York State Div. of Parole, 54 AD3d 464, 464-465, lv denied 11 NY3d 711).

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


Summaries of

In re Ronald Rivers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 5, 2009
67 A.D.3d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

In re Ronald Rivers

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RONALD RIVERS, Appellant, v. GEORGE ALEXANDER, as Chair…

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

Date published: Nov 5, 2009

Citations

67 A.D.3d 1086 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7900
886 N.Y.S.2d 925

Citing Cases

Borcsok v. N.Y. State Board of Parole

This Court has been advised that, since the commencement of this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has…