ADAMS, JAMES EARL v. BOLLINIER, SUPERINTENDENT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ADAMS, JAMES EARL v. BOLLINIER, SUPERINTENDENT

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 13, 2014

DocketCA 12-02396

StatusPublished

This text of ADAMS, JAMES EARL v. BOLLINIER, SUPERINTENDENT (ADAMS, JAMES EARL v. BOLLINIER, SUPERINTENDENT) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ADAMS, JAMES EARL v. BOLLINIER, SUPERINTENDENT, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

661 CA 12-02396 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SUPERINTENDENT BOLLINIER, FIVE POINTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), dated July 5, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied and dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that he violated a prison disciplinary rule. Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Inasmuch as petitioner has served the entirety of the imposed 30-day penalty, his contention that the penalty was unlawful is moot (see Matter of Ellison v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 778, 778-779), and we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (cf. id. at 779; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714- 715). Petitioner’s contention that the absence of the hearing transcript precluded the court’s meaningful review is not preserved for our review and, in any event, is without merit (see Matter of Sessoms v Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 63 AD3d 1400, 1400). We reject petitioner’s further contention that the absence of the hearing transcript from the record on appeal prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review, inasmuch as the missing transcript “is not relevant to the issues before us” (Matter of Gold v Masse, 256 AD2d 981, 981-982, lv denied 93 NY2d 803; see Matter of Borrero v Goord, 268 AD2d 853, 854).

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

661 CA 12-02396 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SUPERINTENDENT BOLLINIER, FIVE POINTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), dated July 5, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied and dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that he violated a prison disciplinary rule. Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Inasmuch as petitioner has served the entirety of the imposed 30-day penalty, his contention that the penalty was unlawful is moot (see Matter of Ellison v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 778, 778-779), and we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (cf. id. at 779; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714- 715). Petitioner’s contention that the absence of the hearing transcript precluded the court’s meaningful review is not preserved for our review and, in any event, is without merit (see Matter of Sessoms v Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 63 AD3d 1400, 1400). We reject petitioner’s further contention that the absence of the hearing transcript from the record on appeal prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review, inasmuch as the missing transcript “is not relevant to the issues before us” (Matter of Gold v Masse, 256 AD2d 981, 981-982, lv denied 93 NY2d 803; see Matter of Borrero v Goord, 268 AD2d 853, 854).

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ADAMS, JAMES EARL v. BOLLINIER, SUPERINTENDENT, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-james-earl-v-bollinier-superintendent-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack