Matter of Shapard v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Shapard v Annucci 2016 NY Slip Op 01724 Decided on March 10, 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: March 10, 2016
521340

[*1]In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER SHAPARD, Petitioner,

v

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

Calendar Date: January 19, 2016
Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

Christopher Shapard, Comstock, 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 challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the disciplinary determination has since been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge will be 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 petition is dismissed as moot

(see Matter of Rizzuto v Prack, 134 AD3d 1263, 1263 [2015]; Matter of Streeter v Annucci, 131 AD3d 771, 772 [2015]). Petitioner's request for costs is denied, but we do award disbursements in the amount of $15 (see Matter of Gillard v Maly, 106 AD3d 1347, 1347 [2013]).

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with [*2]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.