Matter of Dexter v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Dexter v Annucci 2015 NY Slip Op 09340 Decided on December 17, 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: December 17, 2015
520768

[*1]In the Matter of JOSEPH DEXTER, Petitioner,

v

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

Calendar Date: October 27, 2015
Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

Joseph Dexter, Auburn, 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary determination that found him guilty, following a hearing, of possessing a weapon and possessing contraband. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. Although not mentioned in the Attorney General's letter, "any loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the determination should be

restored" (Matter of Russo v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1257, 1257-1258 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). In view of this, and given that petitioner has otherwise received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Hayes v Annucci, 122 AD3d 992, 992 [2014]).

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine 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.