Matter of Torres v. Senft

166 N.Y.S.3d 917, 205 A.D.3d 1031, 2022 NY Slip Op 03391
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 25, 2022
DocketMARK C. DILLON, J.P.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 N.Y.S.3d 917 (Matter of Torres v. Senft) 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 Torres v. Senft, 166 N.Y.S.3d 917, 205 A.D.3d 1031, 2022 NY Slip Op 03391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Matter of Torres v Senft (2022 NY Slip Op 03391)
Matter of Torres v Senft
2022 NY Slip Op 03391
Decided on May 25, 2022
Appellate Division, Second 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 on May 25, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

2021-07586

[*1]In the Matter of Jose E. Torres, petitioner,

v

Anthony Senft, etc., et al., respondents. Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for petitioner.


Messina Perillo Hill, LLP, Sayville, NY (Timothy F. Fill and Lisa A. Perilla of counsel), for respondent Anthony Senft.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent Suffolk County District Attorney's Office.



DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondent Anthony Senft, a Judge of the County Court, Suffolk County, from enforcing an order dated September 17, 2021, issued in a matter entitled People v Torres , pending in that court under Indictment No. 64/21.

ADJUDGED that the proceeding is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

This proceeding has been rendered academic, as the petitioner entered a plea of guilty on March 22, 2022, in satisfaction of all charges pending against him in the underlying criminal matter. This case does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). Accordingly, the proceeding must be dismissed.

DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, MALTESE and FORD, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Matter of Burke v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.
201 N.Y.S.3d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 N.Y.S.3d 917, 205 A.D.3d 1031, 2022 NY Slip Op 03391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-torres-v-senft-nyappdiv-2022.