Lomonaco v. Dennison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lomonaco v. Dennison

29 A.D.3d 1144, 813 N.Y.S.2d 829, 814 N.Y.S.2d 393

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

DecidedMay 11, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 1144 (Lomonaco v. Dennison) 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

Lomonaco v. Dennison, 29 A.D.3d 1144, 813 N.Y.S.2d 829, 814 N.Y.S.2d 393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered October 24, 2005 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as moot.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a July 2004 determination of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release and imposing a 24-month hold. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm. As noted by Supreme Court, petitioner was conditionally released to parole supervision in September 2005 and, having received all the relief to which he is entitled, his challenge to the Board’s July 2004 determination is moot (see Matter of Walker v Gawloski, 299 AD2d 777 [2002]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, 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 (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered October 24, 2005 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as moot.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a July 2004 determination of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release and imposing a 24-month hold. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm. As noted by Supreme Court, petitioner was conditionally released to parole supervision in September 2005 and, having received all the relief to which he is entitled, his challenge to the Board’s July 2004 determination is moot (see Matter of Walker v Gawloski, 299 AD2d 777 [2002]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 1144, 813 N.Y.S.2d 829, 814 N.Y.S.2d 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lomonaco-v-dennison-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack