Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Scott PARRILLA, Appellant, v. John DONELLI, as Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 4, 2005 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.
While incarcerated at Bare Hill Correctional Facility in Franklin County, petitioner filed a grievance requesting, among other things, that Jewish inmates, such as himself, be provided a designated worship area separate from the inmates of other religions. The grievance was precipitated by the fact that Jewish services at the facility were conducted in a room used for Christian services which contained Christian icons and symbols. Although prison officials determined that various items of Christian religious significance would be covered to make the room appropriate for Jewish services, they declined to designate a separate area for this purpose. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding as a result. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
The Attorney General has advised this Court that since the commencement of this proceeding, petitioner has been transferred to Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County where he attends Jewish services in a general purpose room that contains no permanent religious icons. In view of this, he is no longer aggrieved by the determination at issue and his appeal is, therefore, moot (see Matter of McCants v. Le Claire, 14 A.D.3d 736, 786 N.Y.S.2d 746 [2005]; cf. Matter of Doe v. Coughlin, 71 N.Y.2d 48, 52, 523 N.Y.S.2d 782, 518 N.E.2d 536 [1987], cert. denied 488 U.S. 879, 109 S.Ct. 196, 102 L.Ed.2d 166 [1988] ). Consequently, it must be dismissed.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 26, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)