Court Opinion

ID: 9400977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 19:09:11.332333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:49.243237
License: Public Domain

Matter of Stuart v Annucci (2023 NY Slip Op 03122)

Matter of Stuart v Annucci

2023 NY Slip Op 03122

Decided on June 9, 2023

Appellate Division, Fourth 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 on June 9, 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, BANNISTER, MONTOUR, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.

377 CA 22-00734

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN STUART, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
vANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (MICHAEL J. MANUSIA OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (DUSTIN J. BROCKNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered April 18, 2022 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition. 
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul the determination of the Board of Parole (Board) denying his request for release to parole supervision following a hearing in April 2021. The Attorney General has advised this Court that, subsequent to that denial and during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner reappeared before the Board in April 2023 and was again denied release. Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Romano v Annucci, 196 AD3d 1176, 1176 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of Colon v Annucci, 177 AD3d 1393, 1394 [4th Dept 2019]; see generally Matter of Moissett v Travis, 97 NY2d 673, 674 [2001]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Romano, 196 AD3d at 1176; Colon, 177 AD3d at 1394; Matter of Brunner v Speckard, 214 AD2d 1040, 1040-1041 [4th Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 707 [1995]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).
Entered: June 9, 2023
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court