Opinion
524550.
11-09-2017
In the Matter of Anthony RUCANO, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Anthony Rucano, Attica, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for respondent.
Anthony Rucano, Attica, petitioner pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for respondent.
(1) 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule, and (2) motion for, among other things, disbursements.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. The determination has since 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. Contrary to petitioner's contentions, he has no right to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the administrative segregation determination (see Matter of Russ v. Annucci, 134 A.D.3d 1368, 21 N.Y.S.3d 652 [2015] ; Matter of Folk v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 977, 978, 994 N.Y.S.2d 550 [2014] ). However, the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the disciplinary proceeding should be restored (see Matter of Jenkins v. Annucci, 153 A.D.3d 992, 992, 56 N.Y.S.3d 912 [2017] ). Otherwise, petitioner has been granted all of the relief to which he is entitled and, as such, his petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Sheard v. Annucci, 153 A.D.3d 1008, 1008, 56 N.Y.S.3d 904 [2017]; Matter of Gega v. Annucci, 149 A.D.3d 1439, 1439, 50 N.Y.S.3d 893 [2017] ). To the extent that petitioner requests declaratory relief, such request was not included in his petition and, in any event, is not authorized by CPLR 7804(g) (see Matter of Nunez v. LaValley, 95 A.D.3d 1583, 1584, 944 N.Y.S.2d 710 [2012] ).
As a final matter, because the record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $15 and he has requested a refund thereof, we grant that portion of his motion requesting reimbursement of that amount.
ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
ORDERED that the motion is granted, without costs, to the extent that petitioner is awarded disbursements in the amount of $15.
PETERS, P.J., EGAN JR., ROSE, CLARK and RUMSEY, JJ., concur.