Folk v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Folk v. Annucci

122 A.D.3d 977, 994 N.Y.S.2d 550

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 977 (Folk v. Annucci) 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

Folk v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 977, 994 N.Y.S.2d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

(1) Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determi[978]*978nation of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule, and (2) motion for, among other things, back pay.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to his inmate account. Although petitioner requests, both in his petition and more particularly by motion, that he be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, including reinstatement to his prior job assignment and back pay, “inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status” CMatter of Hamilton v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2012]; see Matter of Herring v Brack, 118 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2014]). Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Rafi v Brack, 116 AD3d 1324, 1325 [2014]).

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs. Ordered that the motion is denied, without costs.

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

(1) Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determi[978]*978nation of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule, and (2) motion for, among other things, back pay.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to his inmate account. Although petitioner requests, both in his petition and more particularly by motion, that he be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, including reinstatement to his prior job assignment and back pay, “inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status” CMatter of Hamilton v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2012]; see Matter of Herring v Brack, 118 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2014]). Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Rafi v Brack, 116 AD3d 1324, 1325 [2014]).

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs. Ordered that the motion is denied, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 977, 994 N.Y.S.2d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folk-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack