Court Opinion

ID: 4036414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-23 04:15:43.946707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:29.684844
License: Public Domain

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Koweek, J.), entered November 13, 2015 in Columbia County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner’s motion to amend a prior order.
 

  Petitioner brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a September 2013 determination denying his request for parole release and, in June 2014, Supreme Court issued an order directing a de novo parole hearing. Petitioner was again denied parole release at the end of that hearing in September 2014. Petitioner sought to challenge this denial via a pro se motion to enforce the June 2014 order, but Supreme Court issued a February 2015 order denying that motion. Petitioner appealed the February 2015 order, which this Court dismissed
   
   *1230
   
  as moot given his May 2015 reappearance before the Board of Parole
  
   (Matter of Tafari v Stanford,
  
  133 AD3d 1013 [2015],
  
   lv denied
  
  26 NY3d 917 [2016]).
 

  While his appeal of the February 2015 order was pending, petitioner made a pro se motion to amend the June 2014 order. Before this motion was decided, the May 2015 determination denying him parole release was administratively reversed and a de novo parole hearing was conducted in August 2015 resulting in another denial of parole release. Petitioner supplemented his pro se motion accordingly. Supreme Court ultimately denied petitioner’s motion to amend and petitioner now appeals.
 

  Based upon our review of the papers submitted by petitioner in connection with his pro se motion, it is evident that, although the motion is directed at the June 2014 order, petitioner is essentially seeking to challenge the September 2014 and August 2015 determinations denying him parole release. Petitioner was obliged to pursue such challenges through separate CPLR article 78 proceedings rather than through a motion to amend Supreme Court’s June 2014 order
  
   (see Matter of Tafari v Stanford,
  
  133 AD3d at 1013). Therefore, the motion was properly denied.
 

  Lynch, J.P., Rose, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that judgment is affirmed, without costs.