Chandler v. Coughlin

126 A.D.2d 886, 511 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42002
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 886 (Chandler v. Coughlin) 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
Chandler v. Coughlin, 126 A.D.2d 886, 511 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Levine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered April 10, 1986 in Albany County, which converted petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding to an action for a declaratory judgment and declared that the appointment of parole officers to a temporary release committee pursuant to 7 NYCRR 1900.2 (a) was unconstitutional.

It is uncontested that on February 28, 1986, petitioner, then an inmate at Bedford Correctional Facility, was released on parole. This was prior to the rendering of a decision by Supreme Court on the instant matter, in which petitioner challenged the denial of her application to participate in a [887]*887temporary release program on the ground that the temporary release committee which considered her application was illegally constituted by the inclusion therein of parole officers. Consequently, this matter became moot before judgment was granted, since the right of petitioner to participate in the temporary release program could no longer be affected once she was released from the custody of correctional authorities (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; see also, Matter of Tremarco v New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 NY2d 968; Matter of Austin v Ward, 56 AD2d 868). Petitioner’s argument that this appeal should be entertained on the merits because of the public importance of the issue involved is unavailing. There has been no demonstration that the issue is likely to escape judicial review, a necessary factor for any exception to the mootness doctrine (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715, supra).

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs and petition dismissed as moot. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kagan v. New York State Department of Corrections
117 A.D.3d 1215 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Muhammad v. Recore
251 A.D.2d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Volin v. Goord
246 A.D.2d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Boodro v. Coughlin
142 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Cintron v. Coughlin
141 A.D.2d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.2d 886, 511 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1987.