Maurent v. Lacy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maurent v. Lacy

220 A.D.2d 910, 649 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10173

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 910 (Maurent v. Lacy) 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

Maurent v. Lacy, 220 A.D.2d 910, 649 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

As the result of his possession of certain documentation, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing contraband. Petitioner argues that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Since the commencement of this proceeding, respondent has annulled the subject determination and expunged it from petitioner’s records. As the matter is now moot, we need not address the merits of petitioner’s claim. Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to the recovery of incidental expenses.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, 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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

As the result of his possession of certain documentation, petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing contraband. Petitioner argues that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Since the commencement of this proceeding, respondent has annulled the subject determination and expunged it from petitioner’s records. As the matter is now moot, we need not address the merits of petitioner’s claim. Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to the recovery of incidental expenses.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 910, 649 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurent-v-lacy-nyappdiv-1995.