Case Name: In the Matter of Darryl Shelton, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-04-23
Citations: 127 A.D.3d 1490
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Darryl Shelton, Petitioner, v Commissioner of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Judges: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 1490–1491

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Darryl Shelton, Petitioner, v Commissioner of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
[5 NYS3d 919]

Opinion:
— 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 which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the disciplinary determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to him, and requests that the proceeding be dismissed as moot. Although petitioner opposes respondent's request to the extent that he seeks to be returned to the correctional facility where he was housed prior to the disciplinary determination, "inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing status" (Matter of Hernandez v Goord, 279 AD2d 919, 919 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Foley v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1488, 1488 [2010]). We do note, however, that the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the determination should be restored (see Matter of Hayes v Annucci, 122 AD3d 992, 992 [2014]). Otherwise, petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled and the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Bank v Racette, 122 AD3d 991, 992 [2014]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.