Matter of Tafari v Leclaire

Annotate this Case
Matter of Tafari v Leclaire 2010 NY Slip Op 09587 [79 AD3d 1539] December 30, 2010 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011

In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Lucien Leclaire, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

—[*1] Injah Tafari, Malone, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Devine, J.), entered November 2, 2007 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent restricting petitioner's visitation privileges.

In 2005, while an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility in Ulster County, certain visitation restrictions were placed on petitioner following a visiting room incident in which he destroyed property and injured several correction officers. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination restricting his visitation. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and petitioner now appeals.

As we noted previously in our decision in Matter of Tafari v Goord (55 AD3d 1176 [2008]), once petitioner was transferred to Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County in 2007, and the visitation restrictions ceased to be effective, his challenge to the determination was rendered moot. His current challenge to that determination is also moot, particularly when petitioner was transferred to Upstate Correctional Facility in Franklin County in July 2010, where there are currently no visitation restrictions imposed upon him (see Matter of Tafari v Fischer, 76 AD3d 1149 [2010]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, 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.