Matter of Rich v. Martuscello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 21, 2026·No. CV-25-1271·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Matter of Rich v Martuscello - 2026 NY Slip Op 03214
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 Rich v Martuscello

2026 NY Slip Op 03214

May 21, 2026

Appellate Division, Third 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 Gabriel Rich, Petitioner,

v

Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Decided and Entered:May 21, 2026

CV-25-1271

Calendar Date: April 17, 2026

Before: Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Fisher, Mackey And Corcoran, JJ.

Gabriel Rich, Rome, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary hearing finding him guilty of violating certain 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. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Evans v Rodriguez, 244 AD3d 1366, 1366 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of McKnight v Kopp, 241 AD3d 1668, 1668 [3d Dept 2025]). As the record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $15, and he has requested reimbursement thereof, we grant his request and direct respondent to reimburse him for that amount (see Matter of Evans v Rodriguez, 244 AD3d at 1366-1367; Matter of Bruno v Martuscello, 237 AD3d 1403, 1403 [3d Dept 2025]).

Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Fisher, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

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

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 Rich v. Martuscello, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

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

Related

Matter of Gearing
237 A.D.3d 1403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)