| Matter of Whaley v Goord |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00388 [47 AD3d 1132] |
| January 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of John Whaley, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, asCommissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the SupremeCourt, entered in Albany County), to, among other things, review a determination which imposeda loss of good time credit due to petitioner's failure to complete the residential substance abusetreatment program.
Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits inmatesfrom possessing alcohol, and the determination was subsequently affirmed on administrativeappeal. Due to this disciplinary infraction, petitioner was directed to participate in the residentialsubstance abuse treatment (hereinafter RSAT) program. He filed an unsuccessful grievance andrefused to participate in the program, which resulted in negative evaluations, his eventualremoval from the program and the loss of nine months of good time credit. Petitionercommenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the prison disciplinary determinationand later sought to supplement his petition to challenge his placement in the RSAT program andsubsequent loss of good time credit. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court, among otherthings, dismissed that part of the petition challenging the RSAT placement and loss of good timecredit, and transferred the prison disciplinary portion of the petition to this Court.
Initially, we note that inasmuch as petitioner has not advanced any arguments in his briefregarding the prison disciplinary determination, he has abandoned any challenge to that [*2]determination (see Matter of Harris v Selsky, 28 AD3d 982, 982 n [2006]).Moreover, given that petitioner was released from prison on January 3, 2007 after serving hissentence, any challenge to the RSAT placement and loss of good time credit is now moot (see Matter of Roach v Goord, 19 AD3d839 [2005]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that thedetermination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.