Matter of Paige v. McGuinness
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 01416 (Matter of Paige v. McGuinness) 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
| Matter of Paige v McGuinness |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 01416 |
| Decided on March 13, 2025 |
| 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:March 13, 2025
CV-24-0527
v
Thomas McGuinness, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Calendar Date:February 7, 2025
Before:Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Powers, JJ.
Zaire Paige, Wallkill, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondents.
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 Shawangunk Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier II determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has since been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge will be refunded to petitioner's account. In view of this, and given that petitioner has been granted all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Nipitella v Annucci, 228 AD3d 1217, 1217-1218 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Booker v Rodriguez, 227 AD3d 1251, 1251 [3d Dept 2024]). Because the record reflects that petitioner paid a filing fee of $15 and he has requested a refund thereof, we grant petitioner's request and direct respondents to reimburse him that amount (see Matter of Engles v Rodriguez, 229 AD3d 1030, 1030 [3d Dept 2024]).
Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia, McShan and Powers, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 01416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-paige-v-mcguinness-nyappdiv-2025.