Matter of Woods v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Woods v Annucci 2015 NY Slip Op 06455 Decided on August 6, 2015 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: August 6, 2015
519541

[*1]In the Matter of LEE WOODS, Petitioner,

v

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: June 8, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

Lee Woods, Dannemora, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff 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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. In view of this and given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Tevault v Prack, 127 AD3d 1483 [2015]; Matter of Smith

v Annucci, 127 AD3d 1476 [2015]). Petitioner has no right to be restored to his prior status (see Matter of Wynn v Fischer, 120 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2014]; Matter of Herring v Prack, 118 AD3d 1200 [2014]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition 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.