ADAMS, JAMES EARL v. BOLLINIER, SUPERINTENDENT ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    661
    CA 12-02396
    PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF JAMES ADAMS,
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
    V                            MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    SUPERINTENDENT BOLLINIER, FIVE POINTS
    CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
    JAMES ADAMS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
    ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Seneca County
    (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), dated July 5, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant
    to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied and dismissed the petition.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding
    seeking to annul the determination that he violated a prison
    disciplinary rule. Supreme Court properly denied the petition.
    Inasmuch as petitioner has served the entirety of the imposed 30-day
    penalty, his contention that the penalty was unlawful is moot (see
    Matter of Ellison v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 778, 778-779), and we conclude
    that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (cf. id. at
    779; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-
    715). Petitioner’s contention that the absence of the hearing
    transcript precluded the court’s meaningful review is not preserved
    for our review and, in any event, is without merit (see Matter of
    Sessoms v Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 63 AD3d 1400, 1400).
    We reject petitioner’s further contention that the absence of the
    hearing transcript from the record on appeal prevents this Court from
    conducting a meaningful appellate review, inasmuch as the missing
    transcript “is not relevant to the issues before us” (Matter of Gold v
    Masse, 256 AD2d 981, 981-982, lv denied 93 NY2d 803; see Matter of
    Borrero v Goord, 268 AD2d 853, 854).
    Entered:   June 13, 2014                        Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 12-02396

Filed Date: 6/13/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/7/2016