Opinion
632 KAH 18–01806
06-14-2019
MELINDA LUCK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MELINDA LUCK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, petitioner appeals from a judgment denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus; in appeal No. 2, she appeals from an order denying her motion seeking leave to reargue or renew her petition. Because petitioner was released to parole in January 2019, we dismiss as moot both the appeal from the judgment denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (see People ex rel. Valentin v. Annucci, 159 A.D.3d 1391, 1392, 70 N.Y.S.3d 112 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 911, 2018 WL 2977996 [2018] ; People ex rel. Ackridge v. Sheahan, 115 A.D.3d 1322, 1323, 982 N.Y.S.2d 803 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 906, 2014 WL 2609455 [2014] ) and the appeal from the order denying her motion seeking leave to reargue or renew her petition (see People ex rel. Seals v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 32 A.D.3d 1262, 1263, 822 N.Y.S.2d 351 [4th Dept. 2006] ). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see People ex rel. Winters v. Crowley, 166 A.D.3d 1525, 1525, 85 N.Y.S.3d 815 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 917, 2019 WL 758283 [2019] ; 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 [1980] ).