Samuels v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samuels v. Fischer

98 A.D.3d 760, 948 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedAugust 2, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 98 A.D.3d 760 (Samuels v. Fischer) 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

Samuels v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d 760, 948 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record, and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner’s inmate account. As petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the proceeding is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Torres v Bezio, 92 AD3d 1053 [2012]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Fischer, 92 AD3d 1069, 1069-1070 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, 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 Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record, and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner’s inmate account. As petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the proceeding is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Torres v Bezio, 92 AD3d 1053 [2012]; Matter of Kalwasinski v Fischer, 92 AD3d 1069, 1069-1070 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.3d 760, 948 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuels-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack