Haynes v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haynes v. Alexander

66 A.D.3d 1348, 885 N.Y.S.2d 681

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 A.D.3d 1348 (Haynes v. Alexander) 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

Haynes v. Alexander, 66 A.D.3d 1348, 885 N.Y.S.2d 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), dated July 27, 2007 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment vacated the determination of the Board of Parole and ordered a de novo parole release hearing.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: This appeal by petitioner from a judgment vacating the determination of the Board of Parole and ordering a de novo hearing must be dismissed. Petitioner has since been released to parole supervision and potential discharge, thus rendering the appeal moot, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see People ex rel. Mitchell v Unger, 63 AD3d 1591 [2009]; People ex rel. Hampton v Dennison, 59 AD3d 951 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), dated July 27, 2007 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment vacated the determination of the Board of Parole and ordered a de novo parole release hearing.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: This appeal by petitioner from a judgment vacating the determination of the Board of Parole and ordering a de novo hearing must be dismissed. Petitioner has since been released to parole supervision and potential discharge, thus rendering the appeal moot, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see People ex rel. Mitchell v Unger, 63 AD3d 1591 [2009]; People ex rel. Hampton v Dennison, 59 AD3d 951 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.3d 1348, 885 N.Y.S.2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-alexander-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack