Matter of Isaac v Stanford

Matter of Isaac v Stanford 2015 NY Slip Op 04359 Decided on May 21, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 21, 2015
519054

[*1]In the Matter of LEVON ISAAC, Appellant,

v

TINA M. STANFORD, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

Calendar Date: March 31, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

Levon Isaac, Hudson, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nichols, J.), entered July 8, 2014 in Columbia County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 2½ to 5 years in prison upon his conviction of burglary in the third degree. He commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a March 2013 decision of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that, among others, the proceeding was moot given the Board's subsequent denial of petitioner's request to be released to parole supervision. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal by petitioner ensued.

We affirm. Petitioner received all of the relief to which he is entitled by the Board's reconsideration of his request for parole release that it again denied in October 2013 (see Matter of Hardwick v New York State Dept. of Parole, 116 AD3d 1332 [2014]; Matter of Tafari v Evans, 92 AD3d 1060 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 802 [2012]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as moot, and we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable to the circumstances presented here (see Matter of Ellison v Evans, 100 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2012]; Matter of Gilsinger v New York State Div. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1130 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.