From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abdul- Halim v. Venettozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department
Sep 20, 2018
164 A.D.3d 1554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

526115

09-20-2018

In the Matter of Jawwad ABDUL-HALIM, Petitioner, v. Donald VENETTOZZI, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Jawwad Abdul–Halim, Comstock, petitioner pro se. Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.


Jawwad Abdul–Halim, Comstock, petitioner pro se.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

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 the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III prison disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. As petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Houghtaling v. Venettozzi, 160 A.D.3d 1309, 1309, 72 N.Y.S.3d 509 [2018] ; Matter of Ortega v. Lee, 156 A.D.3d 1084, 1085, 65 N.Y.S.3d 485 [2017] ). The record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $50, and he has requested reimbursement thereof. We grant petitioner's request for that amount.

Petitioner further asserts that he has not received a refund of the $5 mandatory surcharge. If that is the case, he should be permitted to recoup that amount (cf.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $50.

Garry, P.J., McCarthy, Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

Matter of Palczewski v. Annucci, 149 A.D.3d 1450, 1450–1451, 52 N.Y.S.3d 736 [2017] ; Matter of Oppenheimer v. Griffin, 123 A.D.3d 1214, 1214, 998 N.Y.S.2d 256 [2014] ).


Summaries of

Abdul- Halim v. Venettozzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department
Sep 20, 2018
164 A.D.3d 1554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Abdul- Halim v. Venettozzi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAWWAD ABDUL- HALIM, Petitioner, v. DONALD VENETTOZZI, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 20, 2018

Citations

164 A.D.3d 1554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
164 A.D.3d 1554
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 6163

Citing Cases

Sockwell v. LaClair

Accordingly, this part of the petition is moot. As the record reflects that petitioner was ordered to pay a…

Simon v. Annucci

Accordingly, given that petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be…