Matter of Windley v. Rodriguez

2024 NY Slip Op 00485

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 1, 2024
• Docket: CV-23-1029
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Windley v Rodriguez (2024 NY Slip Op 00485)

Matter of Windley v Rodriguez

2024 NY Slip Op 00485

Decided on February 1, 2024

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:February 1, 2024

CV-23-1029

[*1]In the Matter of Kenneth Windley, Petitioner,

v

Anthony Rodriguez, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Calendar Date:January 5, 2024
Before:Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Mackey, JJ.

Kenneth Windley, Ray Brook, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu 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 Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the subject disciplinary determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's incarcerated individual account. To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, he is not entitled to such relief (see Matter of Iverson v Annucci, 215 AD3d 1145, 1145 [3d Dept 2023]). Given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Valdez-Cruz v Collado, 219 AD3d 1652, 1652 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Perkins v Annucci, 216 AD3d 1388, 1388-1389 [3d Dept 2023]).

Aarons, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.

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