Matter of Jones v Annucci

Matter of Jones v Annucci 2017 NY Slip Op 00516 Decided on January 26, 2017 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: January 26, 2017
522306

[*1]In the Matter of VERNON A. JONES, Appellant,

v

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

Calendar Date: November 29, 2016
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

Vernon A. Jones, Fallsburg, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered November 27, 2015 in Albany County, which, among other things, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision withholding petitioner's good time allowance.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision to withhold petitioner's good time allowance based upon his failure to complete required programming. Supreme Court, among other things, dismissed the petition. Petitioner now seeks to challenge that dismissal of

the petition.

The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Time Allowance Committee and the Commissioner affirmed the Committee's recommendation that petitioner's good time allowance be restored due to petitioner's completion of programs and continued positive disciplinary record. In view of this, petitioner's challenge to the prior determination has been rendered moot and this appeal must therefore be dismissed (see Matter of Gonzalez v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 107 AD3d 1283, 1283 [2013]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.