Porter v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porter v. Annucci

148 A.D.3d 1779, 49 N.Y.S.3d 333

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.D.3d 1779 (Porter 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

Porter v. Annucci, 148 A.D.3d 1779, 49 N.Y.S.3d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered October 27, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition seeking to annul the Parole Board’s determination denying him parole release. We conclude that “[t]his appeal must be dismissed as moot because the determination expired during the pendency of this appeal, and the Parole Board denied petitioner’s subsequent request for parole release” (Matter of Patterson v Berbary, 1 AD3d 943, 943 [2003], appeal dismissed and lv denied 2 NY3d 731 [2004]; see Matter of Robles v Evans, 100 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2012]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see Matter of Sanchez v Evans, 111 AD3d 1315, 1315 [2013]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and NeMoyer, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered October 27, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition seeking to annul the Parole Board’s determination denying him parole release. We conclude that “[t]his appeal must be dismissed as moot because the determination expired during the pendency of this appeal, and the Parole Board denied petitioner’s subsequent request for parole release” (Matter of Patterson v Berbary, 1 AD3d 943, 943 [2003], appeal dismissed and lv denied 2 NY3d 731 [2004]; see Matter of Robles v Evans, 100 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2012]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see Matter of Sanchez v Evans, 111 AD3d 1315, 1315 [2013]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and NeMoyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.3d 1779, 49 N.Y.S.3d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack