Matter of Wallace v Annucci

Matter of Wallace v Annucci 2017 NY Slip Op 00526 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
522847

[*1]In the Matter of LUSHER WALLACE, Petitioner,

v

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

Calendar Date: November 29, 2016
Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ.

Lusher Wallace, Coxsackie, 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 prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue 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. In light of this, and given that petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Kirshtein v New York State

Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 142 AD3d 1246, 1246 [2016]; Matter of Boyd v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1214, 1214 [2016]). Although petitioner has also requested to be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, he is not entitled to such relief (see Matter of Ramierz v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2016]; Matter of Guiffre v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1193, 1193 [2016]). He is, however, entitled to the restoration of any good time lost as a result of the determination (see Matter of Ramierz v Annucci, 142 AD3d at 1198; Matter of Guiffre v Annucci, 142 AD3d at 1193).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.