Matter of Moore v Prack

Annotate this Case
Matter of Moore v Prack 2015 NY Slip Op 09593 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
521089

[*1]In the Matter of KEVIN MOORE, Petitioner,

v

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

Calendar Date: October 27, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Devine and Clark, JJ.

Kevin Moore, Wallkill, 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of a disciplinary rule violation. 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. The record reflects that the penalty imposed included loss of good time and, although not mentioned in the Attorney General's letter, "we note that any

loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the determination should be restored" (Matter of Hayes v Annucci, 122 AD3d 992, 992 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). In view of this, and given that petitioner has otherwise received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of McCaskell v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 128 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209 [2015]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, 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.