Matter of Butler v Parole

Annotate this Case
Matter of Butler v New York State Div. of Parole 2010 NY Slip Op 04904 [74 AD3d 1533] June 10, 2010 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010

In the Matter of Michael Butler, Respondent, v New York State Division of Parole, Appellant.

—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Sania W. Khan of counsel), for appellant.

McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 24, 2009 in Clinton County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

Petitioner is an inmate serving sentences for numerous convictions, including multiple prison terms of 15 years to life. At his first appearance before the Board of Parole in 2007, the Board denied his request for parole release and ordered that he be held an additional 24 months. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the Board's determination. Supreme Court granted the petition. Respondent appeals.

Based upon petitioner's reappearance before the Board in June 2009, where his request for parole release was again denied, the instant appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Williams v Alexander, 65 AD3d 1412, 1413 [2009]; Matter of Lebron v Travis, 47 AD3d 1142 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 707 [2008]). Contrary to respondent's contention, this matter does not fit within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Banks v Dennison, 57 AD3d 1041, 1041 [2008], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 905 [2009]; compare Matter of Lebron v Alexander, 68 AD3d 1476, 1477 [2009] [applying exception where same issue was raised as here, because issue was novel at that point]). [*2]

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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.