Matter of Blazic v Dennison

Matter of Blazic v Dennison 2008 NY Slip Op 08365 [56 AD3d 824] November 6, 2008 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009

In the Matter of Radislaw Blazic, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

—[*1] Radislaw Blazic, Sonyea, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Egan, Jr., J.), entered March 14, 2007 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review determinations of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's requests for parole release.

In 1960, petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison (subsequently reduced to 20 years to life). He was released to parole supervision in 1979. In 1981, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. The Department of Correctional Services initially treated petitioner's second prison sentence as running consecutively to his first prison sentence. However, based upon the Court of Appeals decision in People v Richardson (100 NY2d 847 [2003]), petitioner's two sentences were subsequently deemed to run concurrently. As a result, petitioner's parole eligibility date was recalculated to August 1986.

In order to account for the parole interviews that petitioner should have been afforded over the years, monthly interviews were scheduled beginning in January 2005. Petitioner was thereafter denied release to parole supervision numerous times throughout 2005 and 2006. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denials of his [*2]requests for parole release. Supreme Court refused the relief sought by petitioner and this appeal ensued.

The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Board subsequent to the determinations which he seeks to have reviewed pursuant to this proceeding. Accordingly, this appeal has been rendered moot and must be dismissed as such (see Matter of Johnson v New York State Div. of Parole, 54 AD3d 464 [2008]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.