Matter of Shelton v Commissioner of Dept. of Corrections & Community Supervision

Matter of Shelton v Commissioner of Dept. of Corrections & Community Supervision 2015 NY Slip Op 03441 Decided on April 23, 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: April 23, 2015
519364

[*1]In the Matter of DARRYL SHELTON, Petitioner,

v

COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Respondent.

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

Darryl Shelton, Stormville, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the disciplinary determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to him, and requests that the proceeding be dismissed as moot. Although petitioner opposes respondent's request to the

extent that he seeks to be returned to the correctional facility where he was housed prior to the disciplinary determination, "inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing status" (Matter of Hernandez v Goord, 279 AD2d 919, 919 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Foley v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1488, 1488 [2010]). We do note, however, that the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the determination should be restored (see Matter of Hayes v Annucci, 122 AD3d 992, 992 [2014]). Otherwise, petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled and the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Bank v Racette, 122 AD3d 991, 992 [2014]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.