Matter of Flowers v. Martuscello
This text of Matter of Flowers v. Martuscello (Matter of Flowers v. Martuscello) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Matter of Flowers v Martuscello
2026 NY Slip Op 02504
April 24, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY FLOWERS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v
DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO, III, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on April 24, 2026
88 CA 25-00114
Present: Curran, J.P., Ogden, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ.
WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (NORMAN P. EFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (RACHEL RAIMONDI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, A.J.), entered January 7, 2025, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
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 [4th Dept 2017]). The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see Matter of Bethea v Annucci, 151 AD3d 1674, 1675 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Brunner v Speckard, 214 AD2d 1040, 1040 [4th Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 707 [1995]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).
Entered: April 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI