Matter of Garnes v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Garnes v Annucci 2016 NY Slip Op 07359 Decided on November 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: November 10, 2016
521995

[*1]In the Matter of AIKIO GARNES, Petitioner,

v

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

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, JJ.

Aikio Garnes, Attica, 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 prison disciplinary determination. 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 $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. Although not mentioned by the Attorney General, the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the disciplinary determination should also be restored (see Matter of Zoccoli v Annucci, 140 AD3d 1512, 1513 [2016]). Otherwise, as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the

proceeding must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Clark v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 138 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2016]; Matter of Corrieri v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1407, 1408 [2016]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, 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.