Matter of Wilson v. Annucci

201 A.D.3d 1290, 158 N.Y.S.3d 642, 2022 NY Slip Op 00490
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2022
Docket533653
StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.3d 1290 (Matter of Wilson v. Annucci) 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 Wilson v. Annucci, 201 A.D.3d 1290, 158 N.Y.S.3d 642, 2022 NY Slip Op 00490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Matter of Wilson v Annucci (2022 NY Slip Op 00490)
Matter of Wilson v Annucci
2022 NY Slip Op 00490
Decided on January 27, 2022
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:January 27, 2022

533653

[*1]In the Matter of Joseph Wilson, Petitioner,

v

Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.


Calendar Date:December 30, 2021
Before:Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

Joseph Wilson, Ossining, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.



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 the Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. 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 account. As petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Dominguez v Wendland, 196 AD3d 991, 991-992 [2021]).

Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.



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

Related

Matter of Dominguez v. Wendland
2021 NY Slip Op 04529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 A.D.3d 1290, 158 N.Y.S.3d 642, 2022 NY Slip Op 00490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wilson-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2022.