Matter of Colon v Venettozzi

Annotate this Case
Matter of Colon v Venettozzi 2017 NY Slip Op 04002 Decided on May 18, 2017 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: May 18, 2017
522821

[*1]In the Matter of ARMANDO COLON, Appellant,

v

DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Calendar Date: April 4, 2017
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.

Matthew McGowan, Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Albany, for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hartman, J.), entered March 4, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, 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 to challenge a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of possessing a weapon. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued. The Attorney General has

informed this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been returned to petitioner's inmate account. In view of the foregoing, petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and this appeal is now moot (see Matter of Lashway v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1172, 1172 [2013]; Matter of Rosales v Prack, 98 AD3d 766, 766 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal 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.