Lataj v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lataj v. Travis

18 A.D.3d 931, 793 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4862

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

DecidedMay 5, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 931 (Lataj v. Travis) 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

Lataj v. Travis, 18 A.D.3d 931, 793 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J), entered August 5, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the April 23, 2003 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in April 2005, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Baez v Travis, 10 AD3d 778 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 702 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J), entered August 5, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the April 23, 2003 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in April 2005, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Baez v Travis, 10 AD3d 778 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 702 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 931, 793 N.Y.S.2d 777, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lataj-v-travis-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack