Thorpe v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thorpe v. Goord

43 A.D.3d 1258, 841 N.Y.S.2d 808

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1258 (Thorpe 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

Thorpe v. Goord, 43 A.D.3d 1258, 841 N.Y.S.2d 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

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.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of unauthorized organizational activity. On administrative appeal, that determination was affirmed with a modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt. The Attorney General has advised that, during the pendency of this proceeding, the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the surcharge imposed has been refunded to petitioner. Given that petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is now dismissed as moot (see Matter of Lewis v Goord, 37 AD3d 917, 917 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, 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.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of unauthorized organizational activity. On administrative appeal, that determination was affirmed with a modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt. The Attorney General has advised that, during the pendency of this proceeding, the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the surcharge imposed has been refunded to petitioner. Given that petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is now dismissed as moot (see Matter of Lewis v Goord, 37 AD3d 917, 917 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1258, 841 N.Y.S.2d 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorpe-v-goord-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack