Marcelin v. Evans, 86 A.D.3d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Marcelin v. Evans, 86 A.D.3d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Griffin v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
These appeals have thus been rendered moot and, inasmuch as the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable, must be dismissed (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2011]; Matter of Blazic v Dennison, 56 AD3d 824 , 825 [2008], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 915 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Griffin v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
These appeals have thus been rendered moot and, inasmuch as the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable, must be dismissed (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 880-881 [2011]; Matter of Blazic v Dennison, 56 AD3d 824 , 825 [2008], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 915 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hodge v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we do not find the exception to the mootness doctrine applicable here (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]; Matter of Borcsok v New York State Bd. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1167 [2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 773 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hodge v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we do not find the exception to the mootness doctrine applicable here (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]; Matter of Borcsok v New York State Bd. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1167 [2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 773 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Payne v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we do not find the exception to the mootness doctrine applicable here (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]; Matter of Borcsok v New York State Bd. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1167 , 1167 [2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 773 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Payne v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we do not find the exception to the mootness doctrine applicable here (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]; Matter of Borcsok v New York State Bd. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1167 , 1167 [2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 773 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellison v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Accordingly, this appeal is moot and, inasmuch as the exception to the mootness doctrine is not applicable, it must be dismissed (see Matter of Harris v New York State Bd. of Parole, 91 AD3d 1010, 1010 [2012]; Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellison v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Accordingly, this appeal is moot and, inasmuch as the exception to the mootness doctrine is not applicable, it must be dismissed (see Matter of Harris v New York State Bd. of Parole, 91 AD3d 1010, 1010 [2012]; Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burr v. Chairperson, Appeals Unit, Division of Parole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Moreover, Supreme Court correctly held that the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable to petitioner’s circumstances (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Harvey Marcelin
v.
Andrea W. Evans, as Chair of the New York State Division of Parole
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 28, 2011.
86 A.D.3d 880
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding chai[*881] lenging a June 2009 determination of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release. The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reappeared before the Board in May 2011 at which time his request for parole release was again denied. In view of this, and finding that the exception to the mootness doctrine is not applicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), the appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Perkins v New York State Div. of Parole, 80 AD3d 1045, 1045-1046 [2011]; Matter of Williams v Alexander, 65 AD3d 1412, 1413 [2009]).

Spain, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 32673(U).]