Matter of Albanese v. Annucci

2020 NY Slip Op 1686, 117 N.Y.S.3d 890, 181 A.D.3d 1085

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: March 12, 2020
• Docket: 529108
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Albanese v Annucci (2020 NY Slip Op 01686)

Matter of Albanese v Annucci

2020 NY Slip Op 01686

Decided on March 12, 2020

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: March 12, 2020

529108

[*1]In the Matter of Renato Albanese, Petitioner,

v

Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: February 7, 2020
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

Renato Albanese, Marcy, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination that found him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. The Attorney General further advises that the recommended loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the disciplinary determination has been restored. Inasmuch as petitioner has been granted all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Harrison v Venettozzi, 171 AD3d 1387, 1387-1388 [2019]; Matter of Boeck v Annucci, 165 AD3d 1334, 1334 [2018]). As the record reflects that petitioner has paid a reduced filing fee of $15 and has paid and documented other expenses in connection with this proceeding in the amount of $60, and has requested reimbursement thereof, we grant petitioner's request for that amount. Petitioner's remaining requests have been considered and rejected.

Egan Jr., J.P., Mulvey, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $75.