Matter of Young v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Annotate this Case
Matter of Young v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision 2017 NY Slip Op 02104 Decided on March 23, 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: March 23, 2017
523207

[*1]In the Matter of CARL YOUNG, Petitioner,

v

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION et al., Respondents.

Calendar Date: January 24, 2017
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

Carl Young, Fallsburg, petitioner pro se.

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



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 disciplinary determination finding him guilty of drug use. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has since 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. In view of this, and given that petitioner has been granted all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter

of Ballard v Racette, 140 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2016]). Petitioner requests that his $15 reduced filing fee be refunded and the record establishes that he paid that fee (see Matter of Gonzalez v Prack, 140 AD3d 1500, 1501 [2016]).

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $15.



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.