Court Opinion

ID: 4257869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-23 19:24:45.728457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:47.232972
License: Public Domain

Matter of Brisbane v Annucci (2018 NY Slip Op 02091)

Matter of Brisbane v Annucci

2018 NY Slip Op 02091

Decided on March 23, 2018

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 March 23, 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

380 CA 17-00080

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

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (BRIAN D. GINSBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

	Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered November 10, 2016 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 Parole Board's determination denying his request for release to parole supervision. The Attorney General has advised this Court that, subsequent to that denial and during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner reappeared before the Parole Board in January 2018, at which time he was given an "  open date' " for release. In view of that reappearance, this appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Hill v Annucci, 149 AD3d 1540, 1541 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Dobranski v Alexander, 69 AD3d 1091, 1091 [4th Dept 2010]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).
Entered: March 23, 2018
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court