Matter of Kadenhead v. Martuscello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 24, 2026·No. 228 CA 25-00145·Published

Opinion

Matter of Kadenhead v Martuscello - 2026 NY Slip Op 04575
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Matter of Kadenhead v Martuscello

2026 NY Slip Op 04575

July 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 DARIUS KADENHEAD, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

DANIEL F. MARTUSCELLO, III, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, AND BARBARA O'NEILL, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on July 24, 2026

228 CA 25-00145

Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Delconte, And Hannah, JJ.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (DOUGLAS E. WAGNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John J. DelMonte, J.), dated November 8, 2024, in a proceeding seeking a stay of a parole revocation hearing. The judgment stayed the final parole revocation hearing of petitioner.

[*1]

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

Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a judgment that stayed petitioner's final parole revocation hearing with regard to certain charges. We dismiss this appeal as moot inasmuch as the stay has expired by its own terms (see Matter of O'Brien v Brenda H., 217 AD3d 1547, 1548 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 903 [2024]; People ex rel. Finlay v Gideon, 129 AD3d 1632, 1633 [4th Dept 2015]; Matter of Cyle J.F. [Alexander F.], 128 AD3d 1364, 1364-1365 [4th Dept 2015]) and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

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

Matter of Kadenhead v. Martuscello, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Matter of Kadenhead v. Martuscello (Matter of Kadenhead v. Martuscello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

F., CYLE J., MTR. OF
128 A.D.3d 1364 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Hearst Corp. v. Clyne
409 N.E.2d 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
People ex rel. Finlay v. Gideon
129 A.D.3d 1632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)