From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loccenitt v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 22, 2021
196 A.D.3d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

532912

07-22-2021

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

Kiaza Loccenitt, Stormville, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.


Kiaza Loccenitt, Stormville, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Proceeding 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 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 has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, he is not entitled to that relief (see Matter of Snyder v. Annucci, 188 A.D.3d 1531, 1532, 132 N.Y.S.3d 892 [2020] ; Matter of Greene v. Annucci, 186 A.D.3d 1868, 1868, 129 N.Y.S.3d 354 [2020] ). Further, any claim for money damages "must be asserted in the Court of Claims, not within a CPLR article 78 proceeding" ( Matter of Taylor v. Kennedy, 159 A.D.2d 827, 827, 553 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1990] ; see Matter of Clark v. Leconey, 193 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 147 N.Y.S.3d 147 [2021] ). Given that petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Shepherd v. Annucci, 193 A.D.3d 1134, 1134, 141 N.Y.S.3d 737 [2021] ; Matter of Upson v. Rich, 190 A.D.3d 1182, 1182, 136 N.Y.S.3d 799 [2021] ). As the record reflects that petitioner has paid a reduced filing fee of $50, and he has requested reimbursement thereof, we grant petitioner's request for that amount.

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $50.


Summaries of

Loccenitt v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 22, 2021
196 A.D.3d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Loccenitt v. Annucci

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Jul 22, 2021

Citations

196 A.D.3d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
148 N.Y.S.3d 397

Citing Cases

Melvin v. McAuliffe

The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all…

Iverson v. Annucci

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