Opinion
530092
11-25-2020
In the Matter of Ronald SNYDER, Petitioner, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
Ronald Snyder, Collins, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.
Ronald Snyder, Collins, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Devine, 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 respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge will be refunded to petitioner's inmate account. "To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, he is not entitled to such relief, as inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status" ( Matter of Watkins v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 171 A.D.3d 1383, 1383, 97 N.Y.S.3d 536 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Mercado v. Annucci, 172 A.D.3d 1844, 1845, 99 N.Y.S.3d 725 [2019] ). Accordingly, and as petitioner otherwise has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Mercado v. Annucci, 172 A.D.3d at 1845, 99 N.Y.S.3d 725 ; Matter of Ortiz v. Venettozzi, 167 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 87 N.Y.S.3d 909 [2015] ).
The materials annexed to the Attorney General's correspondence indeed document the administrative reversal, but the copy of petitioner's institutional record provided nonetheless appears to reference the challenged determination. To the extent that respondent has yet to expunge such determination from petitioner's disciplinary record and/or refund the mandatory surcharge, respondent is directed to take this corrective action (see
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Devine, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Matter of Anselmo v. Annucci, 173 A.D.3d 1583, 1584, 101 N.Y.S.3d 674 [2019] ).