Hamilton v. Bezio

93 A.D.3d 1049, 940 N.Y.S.2d 496
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 22, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 93 A.D.3d 1049 (Hamilton v. Bezio) 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
Hamilton v. Bezio, 93 A.D.3d 1049, 940 N.Y.S.2d 496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order [1050]*1050of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of assaulting staff and refusing a frisk. The Attorney General has informed this Court that, during the pendency of this proceeding, 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. With respect to petitioner’s request that he be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the tier III hearing, inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status (see Matter of Huston v Bezio, 87 AD3d 781 [2011]; Matter of Valdez v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2011]). Accordingly, petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and the proceeding must be dismissed as moot (see Sherman v LaValley, 89 AD3d 1337 [2011]; Matter of Jones v Prack, 83 AD3d 1331 [2011]).

Peters, J.R, Rose, Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., 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

Related

Matter of Adams v. Annucci
2018 NY Slip Op 8397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Chao v. Hollingshead
141 A.D.3d 1072 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
MatterofFolkvAnnucci
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Folk v. Annucci
122 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
MatterofWynnvFischer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Wynn v. Fischer
120 A.D.3d 1467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Sykes v. Fischer
98 A.D.3d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Marcial v. Fischer
96 A.D.3d 1245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.D.3d 1049, 940 N.Y.S.2d 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-bezio-nyappdiv-2012.