Matter of Hill v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Hill v Annucci 2016 NY Slip Op 00724 Decided on February 4, 2016 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: February 4, 2016
521009

[*1]In the Matter of JEFFREY HILL, Petitioner,

v

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: December 8, 2015
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry and Lynch, JJ.

Jeffrey Hill, Malone, 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been ordered refunded to petitioner's inmate account. Although petitioner requests that he be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, he has no right to such relief (see Matter of

Streeter v Annucci, 131 AD3d 771, 772 [2015]). Accordingly, given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see id.; Matter of Woods v Annucci, 131 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2015]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry and Lynch, 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.