Wooley v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wooley v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

69 A.D.3d 1073, 891 N.Y.2d 685

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1073 (Wooley v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) 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

Wooley v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 69 A.D.3d 1073, 891 N.Y.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a tier III disciplinary determination which found him guilty of smuggling and possession of stolen property. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary hearing, “inmates have no statutory or constitutional right to their prior housing or programming status” (Matter of Jackson v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 704 [1993]; see Matter of Grant v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2009]). Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the proceeding is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Mosher v Goord, 300 AD2d 726 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, 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

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a tier III disciplinary determination which found him guilty of smuggling and possession of stolen property. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary hearing, “inmates have no statutory or constitutional right to their prior housing or programming status” (Matter of Jackson v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 704 [1993]; see Matter of Grant v Fischer, 63 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2009]). Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the proceeding is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Mosher v Goord, 300 AD2d 726 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 1073, 891 N.Y.2d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooley-v-new-york-state-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack