Volin v. Goord, 246 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Volin v. Goord, 246 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Shell v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Temp. Release Prog., 26 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 703 temporary work release program. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The Attorney-General has advised this Court that petitioner was…1 citing caseopening of page *703 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Shell v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Temp. Release Prog., 26 A.D.3d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006).published
    Inasmuch as petitioner is no longer incarcerated and can no longer be affected by the determination denying his temporary work release application, this appeal must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Muhammad v Recore, 251 AD2d 800 [1998]…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael Volin
v.
Glenn Goord, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 8, 1998.
Published opinion
246 A.D.2d 702
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered March 12, 1997 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request to participate in a temporary work release program.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this proceeding challenging the denial of his application for participation in a[*703] temporary work release program. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The Attorney-General has advised this Court that petitioner was paroled on November 3, 1997. Because petitioner is no longer incarcerated, his request for participation in the temporary work release program can no longer be affected by the determination of this appeal, rendering the appeal moot (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Matter of Chandler v Coughlin, 126 AD2d 886; Matter of Miller v Coughlin, 87 AD2d 728).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.