Matter of Hill v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Hill v Annucci 2017 NY Slip Op 03320 Decided on April 28, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 28, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
434 CA 15-02091

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS HILL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (NORMAN P. EFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (WILLIAM E. STORRS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered November 13, 2015 in a CPLR article 78 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 CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul the Parole Board's determination denying his request for release to parole supervision. The Attorney General has advised this Court that, subsequent to that denial and during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner reappeared before the Parole Board in December 2016, at which time he was given an " open date' " for release. "In view of his reappearance, the appeal must be dismissed as moot," regardless whether that open date has since been suspended (Matter of Dobranski v Alexander, 69 AD3d 1091, 1091; see Matter of Brockington v Fischer, 119 AD3d 1372, 1373). 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: April 28, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.