Adams v. Superintendent Bollinier

118 A.D.3d 1351, 986 N.Y.S.2d 903
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 118 A.D.3d 1351 (Adams v. Superintendent Bollinier) 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 v. Superintendent Bollinier, 118 A.D.3d 1351, 986 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

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 [1993]), 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 [1980]). 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 [2009]). 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 [1352]*1352review, inasmuch as the missing transcript “is not relevant to the issues before us” (Matter of Gold v Masse, 256 AD2d 981, 981-982 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 803 [1999]; see Matter of Borrero v Goord, 268 AD2d 853, 854 [2000]).

Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Smith v. Annucci
2024 NY Slip Op 05614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Perez v. Annucci
2020 NY Slip Op 05634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Bermudez v. Griffin
142 A.D.3d 1203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 A.D.3d 1351, 986 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-superintendent-bollinier-nyappdiv-2014.