From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Worth v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 6, 2017
152 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

07-06-2017

In the Matter of Roy WORTH, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Roy Worth, Rome, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Roy Worth, Rome, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision 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 at issue 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. We note that the loss of good time that was imposed as part of the penalty should also be restored to petitioner (see Matter of Hines v. Venettozzi, 148 A.D.3d 1444, 1445, 49 N.Y.S.3d 584 [2017] ; Matter of Corrieri v. Annucci, 137 A.D.3d 1407, 1408, 25 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2016] ). Otherwise, as petitioner has been granted all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Brown v. Venettozzi, 148 A.D.3d 1446, 1446, 48 N.Y.S.3d 650 [2017] ; Matter of Garnes v. Annucci, 144 A.D.3d 1277, 1277, 40 N.Y.S.3d 292 [2016] ). Although the petition seeks restoration of privileges, petitioner "is not entitled to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination" (Matter of West v. Annucci, 134 A.D.3d 1379, 1380, 21 N.Y.S.3d 643 [2015] ; see Matter of Herring v. Prack, 118 A.D.3d 1200, 1200, 987 N.Y.S.2d 269 [2014] ).

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

LYNCH, J.P., DEVINE, CLARK, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Worth v. Venettozzi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 6, 2017
152 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Worth v. Venettozzi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROY WORTH, Petitioner, v. DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting…

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

Date published: Jul 6, 2017

Citations

152 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 5488
54 N.Y.S.3d 887

Citing Cases

Guillebeaux v. Annucci

Notwithstanding petitioner's request, he is not entitled to be restored to the status he enjoyed before the…

Ulmer v. Annucci

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