Matter of Jude v. Rodriguez

202 N.Y.S.3d 838, 2024 NY Slip Op 00663

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 8, 2024
• Docket: CV-22-2202
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Jude v Rodriguez (2024 NY Slip Op 00663)

Matter of Jude v Rodriguez

2024 NY Slip Op 00663

Decided on February 8, 2024

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:February 8, 2024

CV-22-2202

[*1]In the Matter of Steven Jude, Petitioner,

v

Anthony Rodriguez, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Calendar Date:January 5, 2024
Before:Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, McShan and Mackey, JJ.

Steven Jude, Fallsburg, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu 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 the Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary hearing finding that he had violated various prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's account. Petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled and, therefore, this matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Vann v Keyser, 213 AD3d 1068, 1068 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Nunez v Venettozzi, 210 AD3d 1170, 1170 [3d Dept 2022]). As the record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $15 and has requested reimbursement thereof, we grant petitioner's request and direct respondent to reimburse him that amount (see Matter of Iverson v Annucci, 215 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2023]).

Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $15.