Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023

Matter of Valdez-Cruz v. Collado

Matter of Valdez-Cruz v. Collado
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 28, 2023
219 A.D.3d 1652; 195 N.Y.S.3d 565; 2023 NY Slip Op 04804
Matter of Valdez-Cruz v. Collado

Opinion

Matter of Valdez-Cruz v Collado (2023 NY Slip Op 04804)
Matter of Valdez-Cruz v Collado
2023 NY Slip Op 04804
Decided on September 28, 2023
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered:September 28, 2023

535815

[*1]In the Matter of Leonardo Valdez-Cruz, Petitioner,

v

Jaifa Collado, as Superintendent of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent.


Calendar Date:September 1, 2023
Before:Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, McShan and Mackey, JJ.

Leonardo Valdez-Cruz, Stormville, petitioner pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.



Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5 mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's account. To the extent that petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, he is not entitled to that relief (see Matter of Iverson v Annucci, 215 AD3d 1145, 1145 [3d Dept 2023]). Given that petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Perkins v Annucci, 216 AD3d 1388, 1388-1389 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Tucker v Annucci, 204 AD3d 1286, 1287 [3d Dept 2022]).

Egan Jr. J.P., Clark, Pritzker, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.



Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.