Hill v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. Annucci

149 A.D.3d 1540, 51 N.Y.S.3d 450

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 2017·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

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 [1541]*1541Board’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 [2010]; see Matter of Brockington v Fischer, 119 AD3d 1372, 1373 [2014]). 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 [1980]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, 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 (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 [1541]*1541Board’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 [2010]; see Matter of Brockington v Fischer, 119 AD3d 1372, 1373 [2014]). 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 [1980]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

Hill v. Annucci, 149 A.D.3d 1540, 51 N.Y.S.3d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

149 A.D.3d 1540 (Hill v. Annucci) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related