Gonzalez v. Warden of Rikers Island

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Warden of Rikers Island

25 A.D.3d 443, 806 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 443 (Gonzalez v. Warden of Rikers Island) 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

Gonzalez v. Warden of Rikers Island, 25 A.D.3d 443, 806 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceedings brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, Bronx County [Robert A. Sackett, J.], entered on or about May 20, 2005), challenging determinations of respondent, dated February 22, 2005 and February 23, 2005, finding that petitioners violated respondent’s rule 130.11, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

In light of respondent’s announced abandonment of the challenged drug testing protocol and the voiding of the infractions found against petitioners on the basis of tests conducted under the abandoned protocol, these proceedings are moot, and we find no exception to the mootness doctrine warranting their continuation (see Matter of David C. 69 NY2d 796 [1987]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-715 [1980]; cf. Matter of Doe v Coughlin, 71 NY2d 48 [1987]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Proceedings brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, Bronx County [Robert A. Sackett, J.], entered on or about May 20, 2005), challenging determinations of respondent, dated February 22, 2005 and February 23, 2005, finding that petitioners violated respondent’s rule 130.11, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

In light of respondent’s announced abandonment of the challenged drug testing protocol and the voiding of the infractions found against petitioners on the basis of tests conducted under the abandoned protocol, these proceedings are moot, and we find no exception to the mootness doctrine warranting their continuation (see Matter of David C. 69 NY2d 796 [1987]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-715 [1980]; cf. Matter of Doe v Coughlin, 71 NY2d 48 [1987]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 443, 806 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-warden-of-rikers-island-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack