Matter of Moreno v Prack

Annotate this Case
Matter of Moreno v Prack 2015 NY Slip Op 05734 Decided on July 2, 2015 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: July 2, 2015
519874

[*1]In the Matter of VINCENT MORENO, Petitioner,

v

ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Calendar Date: May 5, 2015
Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

Vincent Moreno, Auburn, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco 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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. Although not referenced in the letter from the Attorney General, in the event that any loss of good time was incurred as a result

of the determination, it should be restored (see Matter of Laliveres v Prack, 125 AD3d 1029, 1029 [2015]). Otherwise, given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the proceeding is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Ramos v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 123 AD3d 1215, 1215 [2014]).

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition 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.