Opinion
2014-06-13
In the Matter of James ADAMS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. SUPERINTENDENT BOLLINIER, FIVE POINTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent–Respondent.
James Adams, Petitioner–Appellant Pro Se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
James Adams, Petitioner–Appellant Pro Se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that he violated a prison disciplinary rule. Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Inasmuch as petitioner has served the entirety of the imposed 30–day penalty, his contention that the penalty was unlawful is moot ( see Matter of Ellison v. Coughlin, 191 A.D.2d 778, 778–779, 594 N.Y.S.2d 403), and we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( cf. id. at 779, 594 N.Y.S.2d 403;see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876). Petitioner's contention that the absence of the hearing transcript precluded the court's meaningful review is not preserved for our review and, in any event, is without merit ( see Matter of Sessoms v. Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 63 A.D.3d 1400, 1400, 880 N.Y.S.2d 580). We reject petitioner's further contention that the absence of the hearing transcript from the record on appeal prevents this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review, inasmuch as the missing transcript “is not relevant to the issues before us” (Matter of Gold v. Masse, 256 A.D.2d 981, 981–982, 681 N.Y.S.2d 913,lv. denied93 N.Y.2d 803, 689 N.Y.S.2d 16, 711 N.E.2d 201;see Matter of Borrero v. Goord, 268 A.D.2d 853, 854, 701 N.Y.S.2d 731).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.