Matter of Youngs v. Woods

2026 NY Slip Op 01439

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: CV-25-0602
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Youngs v Woods (2026 NY Slip Op 01439)

Matter of Youngs v Woods

2026 NY Slip Op 01439

Decided on March 12, 2026

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:March 12, 2026

CV-25-0602

[*1]In the Matter of Robert Youngs, Petitioner,

v

J. Woods, as Acting Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Calendar Date:February 6, 2026
Before:Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ.

Robert Youngs, Romulus, 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 Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier II disciplinary finding that he had violated a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue 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. Although petitioner requests that we nonetheless review the matter, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, this matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Concepcion v Martuscello, 237 AD3d 1402, 1403 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Paige v McGuinness, 236 AD3d 1171, 1172 [3d Dept 2025]). As the record reflects that petitioner was ordered to pay a reduced filing fee of $15 to be collected from his account, which he indicates was collected on November 11, 2024, and that he paid $.69 in postage, and he has requested refund thereof, we grant his request and direct respondent to reimburse him for that amount (see Matter of Booker v Rodriguez, 227 AD3d 1251, 1251 [3d Dept 2024]).

Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $15.69.