Matter of Rivera v Lee

Annotate this Case
Matter of Rivera v Lee 2018 NY Slip Op 02532 Decided on April 12, 2018 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: April 12, 2018
525592

[*1]In the Matter of RICHARD RIVERA, Petitioner,

v

WILLIAM LEE, as Superintendent of Eastern N.Y. Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Calendar Date: March 2, 2018
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.

Richard Rivera, Napanoch, 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 Ulster 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 tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. 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. In view of this, and given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be

dismissed as moot (see Matter of Wallace v Annucci, 157 AD3d 1171, 1171 [2018]; Matter of Brown v Annucci, 157 AD3d 1182, 1182 [2018]). As the record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $15, and he has requested a refund thereof, we grant such request for reimbursement of that amount.

Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, 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.