Matter of Shepherd v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision

Annotate this Case
Matter of Shepherd v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision 2015 NY Slip Op 06948 Decided on September 24, 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: September 24, 2015
520614

[*1]In the Matter of EON SHEPHERD, Petitioner,

v

COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Respondent.

Calendar Date: August 10, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

Eon Shepherd, Romulus, 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 two determinations of the Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging two determinations finding him guilty of violating five prison disciplinary rules following tier II disciplinary hearings. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determinations have been administratively reversed, all references to the five charges have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to his inmate account. Given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the proceeding is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Williams v

Annucci, 129 AD3d 1427, 1427 [2015]; Matter of Holgate v Prack, 129 AD3d 1419, 1419 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Lynch and Devine, 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.