VENTURA, CHARLES v. FISCHER, BRIAN

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 14, 2014
• Docket: CA 13-01787
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1081 CA 13-01787 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES VENTURA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JULIE M. SHERIDAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered August 19, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. 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 pursuant to CPLR article 78 in which he sought to annul the Parole Board’s determination denying his request for release to parole supervision. “This appeal must be dismissed as moot because the determination expired during the pendency of this appeal, and the Parole Board denied petitioner’s subsequent request for parole release” (Matter of Patterson v Berbary, 1 AD3d 943, 943, appeal dismissed and lv denied 2 NY3d 731; see Matter of Robles v Evans, 100 AD3d 1455, 1455). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: November 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court