Matter of Mckethan v Prack

Annotate this Case
Matter of Mckethan v Prack 2013 NY Slip Op 07537 Decided on November 14, 2013 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: November 14, 2013
516349

[*1]In the Matter of WILLIAM McKETHAN, Petitioner,

v

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

Calendar Date: September 18, 2013
Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ.


William McKethan, Morovia, 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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of possession of contraband and misuse of state property. The Attorney General has informed this Court that, during the pendency of this proceeding, the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Toliver v Commissioner of Dept. of Corr. Servs., 101 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2012]; Matter of Jordan v Fischer, 98 AD3d 788, 788 [2012]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. [*2]

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without cost, 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.