Matter of Daum v Venettozzi

Annotate this Case
Matter of Daum v Venettozzi 2016 NY Slip Op 00737 Decided on February 4, 2016 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: February 4, 2016
521262

[*1]In the Matter of TERRY DAUM, Petitioner,

v

DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Calendar Date: December 8, 2015
Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

Terry Daum, Alden, 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 finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III determination finding him guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the disciplinary 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. Notwithstanding his request, petitioner is not entitled

to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination (see Matter of Streeter v Annucci, 131 AD3d 771, 772 [2015]). As petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Smith v Prack, 131 AD3d 784, 784 [2015]).

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