Rudert v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudert v. Goord

35 A.D.3d 1119, 825 N.Y.S.2d 385

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 1119 (Rudert 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

Rudert v. Goord, 35 A.D.3d 1119, 825 N.Y.S.2d 385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceding 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 Su[1120]*1120perintendent of Otisville Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit refusing a direct order and the misuse of state property. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination of guilt has been administratively reversed and that all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of McMillian v Selsky, 34 AD3d 873 [2006]; Matter of Adams v Goord, 32 AD3d 644 [2006]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

Proceding 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 Su[1120]*1120perintendent of Otisville Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit refusing a direct order and the misuse of state property. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination of guilt has been administratively reversed and that all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of McMillian v Selsky, 34 AD3d 873 [2006]; Matter of Adams v Goord, 32 AD3d 644 [2006]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 1119, 825 N.Y.S.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudert-v-goord-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack