Ferro v. Luvera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferro v. Luvera

288 A.D.2d 735, 732 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11165

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 735 (Ferro v. Luvera) 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

Ferro v. Luvera, 288 A.D.2d 735, 732 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Columbia County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which withheld petitioner’s good time allowance.

Petitioner challenges a decision of the Time Allowance Committee, which was affirmed on administrative appeal, withholding 11 months of good time as a result of petitioner’s failure to participate in an alcohol and substance abuse program, claiming that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has been [736]*736released from prison given his maximum expiration date of October 8, 2001, his challenge to the loss of good time is moot (see, Matter of Walker v Senkowski, 260 AD2d 830, 831). We reject petitioner’s contention that this matter presents an exception to the mootness doctrine.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Columbia County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which withheld petitioner’s good time allowance.

Petitioner challenges a decision of the Time Allowance Committee, which was affirmed on administrative appeal, withholding 11 months of good time as a result of petitioner’s failure to participate in an alcohol and substance abuse program, claiming that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner has been [736]*736released from prison given his maximum expiration date of October 8, 2001, his challenge to the loss of good time is moot (see, Matter of Walker v Senkowski, 260 AD2d 830, 831). We reject petitioner’s contention that this matter presents an exception to the mootness doctrine.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 735, 732 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferro-v-luvera-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack