Matter of Worrell v. Venettozzi

2018 NY Slip Op 2523
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 2018
Docket525158
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 2523 (Matter of Worrell v. Venettozzi) 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 Worrell v. Venettozzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 2523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Matter of Worrell v Venettozzi (2018 NY Slip Op 02523)
Matter of Worrell v Venettozzi
2018 NY Slip Op 02523
Decided on April 12, 2018
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: April 12, 2018

525158

[*1]In the Matter of ANDERSON WORRELL, Petitioner,

v

DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.


Calendar Date: March 2, 2018
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

Anderson Worrell, Stormville, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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 Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III 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 inmate

account. Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has been granted all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Weston v Annucci, 156 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2017]; Matter of Buggsward v Rodriguez, 155 AD3d 1194, 1194-1195 [2017]).

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, 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 Buggsward v. Rodriguez
2017 NY Slip Op 7894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Guillebeaux v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 8575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 2523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-worrell-v-venettozzi-nyappdiv-2018.