Kalwasinski v. Bezio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalwasinski v. Bezio

91 A.D.3d 1223, 936 N.Y.2d 921

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1223 (Kalwasinski 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

Kalwasinski v. Bezio, 91 A.D.3d 1223, 936 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of creating a disturbance, interfering with employees and refusing a direct order. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the disciplinary determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory surcharge refunded to his inmate account. As such, petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled and the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Doyle v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1189 [2011]; Matter of Joseph v LaClair, 87 AD3d 780, 781 [2011]).

Peters, J.P, Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy 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

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of creating a disturbance, interfering with employees and refusing a direct order. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the disciplinary determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory surcharge refunded to his inmate account. As such, petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled and the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Doyle v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1189 [2011]; Matter of Joseph v LaClair, 87 AD3d 780, 781 [2011]).

Peters, J.P, Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1223, 936 N.Y.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalwasinski-v-bezio-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack