Jones v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 26 January 2017
• Parties: In the Matter of Vernon A. JONES, Appellant, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

146 A.D.3d 1254

45 N.Y.S.3d 712

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00516

In the Matter of Vernon A. JONES, Appellant,

v.Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Jan. 26, 2017.

Vernon A. Jones, Fallsburg, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for respondents.

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., ROSE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered November 27, 2015 in Albany County, which, among other things, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision withholding petitioner's good time allowance.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision to withhold petitioner's good time allowance based upon his failure to complete required programming. Supreme Court, among other things, dismissed the petition. Petitioner now seeks to challenge that dismissal of the petition.

The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Time Allowance Committee and the Commissioner affirmed the Committee's recommendation that petitioner's good time allowance be restored due to petitioner's completion of programs and continued positive disciplinary record. In view of this, petitioner's challenge to the prior determination has been rendered moot and this appeal must therefore be dismissed (see Matter of Gonzalez v. Department of Corr. & Community Supervision, 107 A.D.3d 1283, 1283, 967 N.Y.S.2d 775 [2013] ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.