From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Kalwasinski v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 2006
29 A.D.3d 1104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

98900.

May 11, 2006.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Mitchell Kalwasinski, Pine City, petitioner pro se.

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

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.


Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating numerous prison disciplinary rules. Since the commencement of the proceeding, the Attorney General has advised that the determination has been administratively reversed and all references thereto expunged from petitioner's institutional record. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot ( see Matter of Lamage v. Goord, 21 AD3d 633).

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


Summaries of

In the Matter of Kalwasinski v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 2006
29 A.D.3d 1104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In the Matter of Kalwasinski v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MITCHELL KALWASINSKI, Petitioner, v. GLENN S. GOORD, as…

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

Date published: May 11, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 1104 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3663
813 N.Y.S.2d 683

Citing Cases

Roman v. Goord

During the pendency of this proceeding, the determination was administratively reversed and all references…

Lewis v. Glenn

The Attorney General has advised that, during the pendency of this proceeding, the determination at issue was…