Roach v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roach v. Goord

19 A.D.3d 839, 796 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6742

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 839 (Roach v. Goord) 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

Roach v. Goord, 19 A.D.3d 839, 796 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered August 11, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services withholding good time allowance.

Petitioner challenges a determination withholding one year of good time allowance based upon his failure to complete two recommended treatment programs. Inasmuch as petitioner was released from prison in March 2005 following the expiration of his maximum term of imprisonment, the appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Eades v Duncan, 307 AD2d 503 [2003]; Matter of Ferro v Luvera, 288 AD2d 735 [2001]). We reject petitioner’s contention that an exception to the mootness doctrine is presented.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered August 11, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services withholding good time allowance.

Petitioner challenges a determination withholding one year of good time allowance based upon his failure to complete two recommended treatment programs. Inasmuch as petitioner was released from prison in March 2005 following the expiration of his maximum term of imprisonment, the appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Eades v Duncan, 307 AD2d 503 [2003]; Matter of Ferro v Luvera, 288 AD2d 735 [2001]). We reject petitioner’s contention that an exception to the mootness doctrine is presented.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 839, 796 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-goord-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack