Matter of Bethea v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Bethea v. Annucci

2017 NY Slip Op 4634, 151 A.D.3d 1674, 53 N.Y.S.3d 867

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 9, 2017·No. 645 CA 16-00228·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered January 20, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

*1675 Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of the Parole Board denying him parole release. We conclude that “ ‘[t]his appeal must be dismissed as moot because the determination expired during the pendency of this appeal, and the Parole Board denied petitioner’s subsequent request for parole release’ ” (Matter of Porter v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1779, 1779 [2017]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, 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 January 20, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

*1675 Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of the Parole Board denying him parole release. We conclude that “ ‘[t]his appeal must be dismissed as moot because the determination expired during the pendency of this appeal, and the Parole Board denied petitioner’s subsequent request for parole release’ ” (Matter of Porter v Annucci, 148 AD3d 1779, 1779 [2017]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

Matter of Bethea v. Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 4634, 151 A.D.3d 1674, 53 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 4634 (Matter of Bethea v. Annucci) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related