Matter of Isaac v. Stanford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Isaac v. Stanford

128 A.D.3d 1245, 8 N.Y.S.3d 609

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

DecidedMay 21, 2015

Docket519054

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 1245 (Matter of Isaac v. Stanford) 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

Matter of Isaac v. Stanford, 128 A.D.3d 1245, 8 N.Y.S.3d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nichols, J.), entered July 8, 2014 in Columbia County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 2V2 to 5 years in prison upon his conviction of burglary in the third degree. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a March 2013 decision of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that, among others, the proceeding was moot given the Board’s subsequent denial of petitioner’s request to be released to parole supervision. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal by petitioner ensued.

We affirm. Petitioner received all of the relief to which he is entitled by the Board’s reconsideration of his request for parole *1246 release that it again denied in October 2013 (see Matter of Hardwick v New York State Dept. of Parole, 116 AD3d 1332 [2014]; Matter of Tafari v Evans, 92 AD3d 1060 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 802 [2012]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as moot, and we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable to the circumstances presented here (see Matter of Ellison v Evans, 100 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012]; Matter of Gilsinger v New York State Div. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1130 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, 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 (Nichols, J.), entered July 8, 2014 in Columbia County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 2V2 to 5 years in prison upon his conviction of burglary in the third degree. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a March 2013 decision of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that, among others, the proceeding was moot given the Board’s subsequent denial of petitioner’s request to be released to parole supervision. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal by petitioner ensued.

We affirm. Petitioner received all of the relief to which he is entitled by the Board’s reconsideration of his request for parole *1246 release that it again denied in October 2013 (see Matter of Hardwick v New York State Dept. of Parole, 116 AD3d 1332 [2014]; Matter of Tafari v Evans, 92 AD3d 1060 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 802 [2012]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as moot, and we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable to the circumstances presented here (see Matter of Ellison v Evans, 100 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012]; Matter of Gilsinger v New York State Div. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1130 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 1245, 8 N.Y.S.3d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-isaac-v-stanford-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack