Matter of Singleton v Racette

Annotate this Case
Matter of Singleton v Racette 2015 NY Slip Op 09586 Decided on December 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: December 24, 2015
520948

[*1]In the Matter of WILLIE SINGLETON, Petitioner,

v

STEVEN RACETTE, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Calendar Date: October 27, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Rose, JJ.

Willie Singleton, Dannemora, 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 Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule following a tier II disciplinary hearing. 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 his inmate account. Despite his request, petitioner is not entitled to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary

determination (see Matter of Streeter v Annucci, 131 AD3d 771, 772 [2015]; Matter of McLee v Annucci, 131 AD3d 768, 768 [2015]). Given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Streeter v Annucci, 131 AD3d at 772).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Rose, 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.