Nunez v. LaValley, 95 A.D.3d 1583 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Nunez v. LaValley, 95 A.D.3d 1583 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Rucano v. Annucci, 155 A.D.3d 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1584 Declaratory relief not authorized by court procedure2 citing caseshousing or programming status’ ” (Matter of Valdez v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2011], quoting Matter of Rhodes v Smith, 78 AD3d 1391 [2010]). Furthermore,…opening of page *1584 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Matter of Rucano v. Annucci, 155 A.D.3d 1217 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).published
    To the extent that petitioner requests declaratory relief, such request was not included in his petition and, in any event, is not authorized by CPLR 7804 (g) (see Nunez v LaValley, 95 AD3d 1583, 1584 [2012]).
  • Matter of Ellison v. Annucci, 142 A.D.3d 1233 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published
    To the extent that petitioner requests declaratory relief, such relief is not authorized in a transferred proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), and that part of the matter must therefore be remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Manuel Nunez
v.
Thomas LaValley, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 24, 2012.
Published opinion
95 A.D.3d 1583
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier II prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner’s inmate account. In view of this, and given that petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Torres v Bezio, 92 AD3d 1053 [2012]; Matter of Calix v Brown, 92 AD3d 1001 [2012]). While petitioner seeks to be relocated to the honor block where he was housed prior to the disciplinary determination, “ ‘inmates have no constitutional or statutory rights to their prior[*1584] housing or programming status’ ” (Matter of Valdez v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2011], quoting Matter of Rhodes v Smith, 78 AD3d 1391 [2010]). Furthermore, his request for declaratory relief was not included in his petition and, in any event, is not authorized by CPLR 7804 (g) (see Matter of Applegate v Heath, 88 AD3d 699, 700 [2011]).

Mercure, J.P, Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ, concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $102.14.