STOKES, RICHIE v. OF PAROLE, THE DIVISION
This text of STOKES, RICHIE v. OF PAROLE, THE DIVISION (STOKES, RICHIE v. OF PAROLE, THE DIVISION) 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.
Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
895 KAH 15-00416 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. RICHIE STOKES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE AND MS. DOLCE, SUPERINTENDENT, ORLEANS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (James P. Punch, A.J.), entered November 19, 2014 in a habeas corpus proceeding. 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 for a writ of habeas corpus. The appeal has been rendered moot by petitioner’s release from custody upon reaching his maximum expiration date (see People ex rel. Smith v Cully, 112 AD3d 1316, 1317, lv denied 22 NY3d 864; People ex rel. Reynolds v Artus, 103 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209; People ex rel. Baron v New York State Dept. of Corr., 94 AD3d 1410, 1410, lv denied 19 NY3d 807), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Reynolds, 103 AD3d at 1209; Baron, 94 AD3d at 1410; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). While this Court has the power to convert the habeas corpus proceeding into a CPLR article 78 proceeding, we decline to do so under the circumstances of this case (see People ex rel. Walker v Dolce, 125 AD3d 1305, 1305, lv denied 25 NY3d 910; People ex rel. Green v Smith, 119 AD3d 1451, 1452).
Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
STOKES, RICHIE v. OF PAROLE, THE DIVISION, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-richie-v-of-parole-the-division-nyappdiv-2016.