HILL, THOMAS v. ANNUCCI, ANTHONY

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: April 28, 2017
• Docket: CA 15-02091
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

434 CA 15-02091 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS HILL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (NORMAN P. EFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (WILLIAM E. STORRS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered November 13, 2015 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul the Parole Board’s determination denying his request for release to parole supervision. The Attorney General has advised this Court that, subsequent to that denial and during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner reappeared before the Parole Board in December 2016, at which time he was given an “ ‘open date’ ” for release. “In view of his reappearance, the appeal must be dismissed as moot,” regardless whether that open date has since been suspended (Matter of Dobranski v Alexander, 69 AD3d 1091, 1091; see Matter of Brockington v Fischer, 119 AD3d 1372, 1373). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court