Matter of Shepherd v Fischer

Annotate this Case
Matter of Shepherd v Fischer 2014 NY Slip Op 08299 Decided on November 26, 2014 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 26, 2014
519087

[*1]In the Matter of EON SHEPHERD, Petitioner,

v

BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: October 21, 2014
Before: Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

Eon Shepherd, Wallkill, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet 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 four determinations of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging four determinations finding him guilty of violating various disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determinations have been administratively reversed and that all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record. Given that petitioner has been granted all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Lamage v Fischer, 76 AD3d 734, 734 [2010]). To the extent not done so already, petitioner is entitled to a refund to

his inmate account of the mandatory $5 surcharges imposed at the four hearings (see Matter of Mastropietro v Fischer, 81 AD3d 1022, 1022 [2011]; Matter of Stickney v Fischer, 73 AD3d 1356, 1356 [2010]).

Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with a refund of the mandatory surcharges in the amount of $20.



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.