Matter of Watt v. Stanford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Watt v. Stanford

2017 NY Slip Op 3521, 150 A.D.3d 747, 51 N.Y.S.3d 421

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 3, 2017·No. 2015-06409·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated November 13, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application to be released to parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated April 28, 2015, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

This appeal has been rendered academic by the petitioner’s subsequent appearance before the New York State Board of Parole for a de novo hearing, following which he was again denied release (see Matter of Moissett v Travis, 97 NY2d 673, 674 [2001]; Matter of Postall v Alexander, 74 AD3d 1078 [2010]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the issues raised by him do not compel consideration of the appeal on the merits under the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 715 [1980]; cf. Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166 [2007]; Matter of Marino v Travis, 13 AD3d 453, 454-455 [2004]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated November 13, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application to be released to parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated April 28, 2015, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

This appeal has been rendered academic by the petitioner’s subsequent appearance before the New York State Board of Parole for a de novo hearing, following which he was again denied release (see Matter of Moissett v Travis, 97 NY2d 673, 674 [2001]; Matter of Postall v Alexander, 74 AD3d 1078 [2010]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the issues raised by him do not compel consideration of the appeal on the merits under the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 715 [1980]; cf. Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166 [2007]; Matter of Marino v Travis, 13 AD3d 453, 454-455 [2004]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Matter of Watt v. Stanford, 2017 NY Slip Op 3521, 150 A.D.3d 747, 51 N.Y.S.3d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 3521 (Matter of Watt v. Stanford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related