IN RE: THOMAS HILL

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

IN RE: THOMAS HILL, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

CA 15–02091

Decided: April 28, 2017

PRESENT:  WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. WYOMING COUNTY–ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (NORMAN P. EFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (WILLIAM E. STORRS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum:  Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul the Parole Board's determination denying his request for release to parole supervision.  The Attorney General has advised this Court that, subsequent to that denial and during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner reappeared before the Parole Board in December 2016, at which time he was given an “ ‘open date’ “ for release.  “In view of his reappearance, the appeal must be dismissed as moot,” regardless whether that open date has since been suspended (Matter of Dobranski v. Alexander, 69 AD3d 1091, 1091;  see Matter of Brockington v. Fischer, 119 AD3d 1372, 1373).  Contrary to petitioner's contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court