Matter of Ortega v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Ortega v. Lee

2017 NY Slip Op 8770, 156 A.D.3d 1084, 65 N.Y.S.3d 485, 2017 WL 6374659

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2017

Docket524499

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8770 (Matter of Ortega v. Lee) 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 Ortega v. Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 8770, 156 A.D.3d 1084, 65 N.Y.S.3d 485, 2017 WL 6374659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Eastern N.Y. Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination 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 inmate account. “Although petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, including reinstatement to his prison job and back pay, inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status” (Matter of Chao v Hollingshead, 141 AD3d 1072, 1072 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Folk v Annucci, 122 AD3d 977, 978 [2014]; Matter of Henriquez v Goord, 34 AD3d 962, 962 [2006]). Accordingly, and inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Chao v Hollingshead, 141 AD3d at 1072; Matter of Folk v Annucci, 122 AD3d at 978; Matter of Henriquez v Goord, 34 AD3d at 962). As the record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $15, and he has requested a refund thereof, we grant such request for reimbursement of that amount.

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Eastern N.Y. Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination 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 inmate account. “Although petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, including reinstatement to his prison job and back pay, inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status” (Matter of Chao v Hollingshead, 141 AD3d 1072, 1072 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Folk v Annucci, 122 AD3d 977, 978 [2014]; Matter of Henriquez v Goord, 34 AD3d 962, 962 [2006]). Accordingly, and inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Chao v Hollingshead, 141 AD3d at 1072; Matter of Folk v Annucci, 122 AD3d at 978; Matter of Henriquez v Goord, 34 AD3d at 962). As the record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $15, and he has requested a refund thereof, we grant such request for reimbursement of that amount.

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8770, 156 A.D.3d 1084, 65 N.Y.S.3d 485, 2017 WL 6374659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ortega-v-lee-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack