| Matter of Colon v Annucci |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05222 [151 AD3d 1061] |
| June 28, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Michael Colon, Appellant, v AnthonyJ. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and CommunitySupervision, Respondent. |
Robert S. Dean, New York, NY (Jill K. Sanders and Julia Busetti of counsel), forappellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Karen W.Lin, and Ester Murdukhayeva of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel therespondent, Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department ofCorrections and Community Supervision, inter alia, to release the petitioner from the FishkillCorrectional Facility, the petitioner appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, DutchessCounty (James V. Brands, J.), dated August 13, 2015, which dismissed the petition as academic,and (2) an amended order of the same court dated May 12, 2016, which denied his motion forleave to renew the petition.
Ordered that the judgment and the amended order are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.
"It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the lawonly arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actuallycontroverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal" (Matter of Hearst Corp. vClyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713 [1980]). "Courts are generally prohibited from issuing advisoryopinions or ruling on hypothetical inquiries . . . . Thus, an appeal is moot unless anadjudication of the merits will result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties" (Coleman v Daines, 19 NY3d 1087,1090 [2012] [citations omitted]; Matterof New York State Commn. on Jud. Conduct v Rubenstein, 23 NY3d 570, 576 [2014];see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714.).
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the subject petition had been rendered academicby the petitioner's release from Fishkill Correctional Facility, as the petitioner had received theultimate relief he was seeking and any ruling on the petition would have no immediate andpractical consequences to the petitioner. Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in declining to invoke an exception to the mootness doctrine to consider the merits ofthe petition (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714-715). Significantly, asdemonstrated by the petitioner's submissions, the broader issues raised in the petition are notevading judicial [*2]review, but are in fact being litigated in othercases at the Supreme Court.
In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner's motion for leave to renew thepetition. In support of his motion, the petitioner failed to submit new facts not previously offeredthat would change the prior determination on the petition (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Brannv City of New York, 96 AD2d 923, 924 [1983]). Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix andBrathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.