Matter of Fragosa v. Morris, 2017 NY Slip Op 8766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
Matter of Fragosa v. Morris, 2017 NY Slip Op 8766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Rahman v. Galioto (nyappdiv, 2024-10-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Rahman v. Galioto (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Although certain of our decisions imply that submission of a subsequent FRP application alone will moot an appeal from the denial of a prior application (see Matter of Caldwell v Smith-Roberts , 194 AD3d 1215, 1216 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Shapard v Annucci , 177 AD3d 1048 , 1050 [3d Dept 2019]), the appeal is not moot until administrative review of the subsequent application is complete ( see Matter of Caldwell v Smith-Roberts , 194 AD3d at 1216 [subsequent application denied]; Matter of Shapard v Annucci , 177 AD3d at 1050 [same]; Matter of Fragosa v Morris , 156 AD3d 1072, 1072 [3d Dept 20…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Caldwell v. Smith-Roberts
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Petitioner's subsequent FRP application renders his appeal of the denial of his February 2018 application moot and, as the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable, this appeal must be dismissed ( see Matter of Shapard v Annucci , 177 AD3d 1048 , 1050 [2019]; Matter of Fragosa v Morris , 156 AD3d 1072, 1072 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Shapard v. Annucci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Initially, petitioner's challenge to the denial of the 2015 FRP application is rendered moot by the subsequent 2017 FRP application, and we are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the matter comes within the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Fragosa v Morris , 156 AD3d 1072, 1072-1073 [2017]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Anthony Fragosa, Appellant,
v.
Cheryl v. Morris, as Director of Ministerial, Family and Volunteer Services of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent
524113.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 14, 2017.
2017 NY Slip Op 8766
McCarthy, Egan, Rose, Aarons, Pritzker.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Maney, J.), entered October 10, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision denying his request to participate in the family reunion program.

Petitioner is serving an aggregate prison sentence of 50 years to life due to his conviction for, among other things, two counts of murder in the second degree (People v Fregosi, 258 AD2d 259 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 970 [1999]). In May 2015, and while he was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, petitioner submitted an application to participate in the family reunion program at Attica, and that application was denied. Petitioner was thereafter transferred to Auburn Correctional Facility, and he attempted to administratively appeal the denial of his application. Petitioner’s administrative appeal was rejected as untimely. Meanwhile, in October 2015, petitioner submitted a second application to participate in the family reunion program at Auburn, and that application was also denied. There is no indication that petitioner appealed from the denial of his October 2015 application. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his May 2015 application to the family reunion program at Attica, and Supreme Court thereafter dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

The more recent denial of petitioner’s October 2015 application to the family reunion program renders moot his challenges to the earlier denial of his May 2015 application (see Matter of DeChimay v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 152 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2017]; Matter of Graziano v Travis, 21 AD3d 1174, 1174 [2005]). Moreover, the circumstances here do not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

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