People v. N.Y. Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision

214 N.Y.S.3d 268

The PEOPLE of the State of New York EX REL. John NEWMAN, Appellant,

v.NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: June 14, 2024

Decided and Entered: August 1, 2024

John Newman, Binghamton, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Alexandria Twinem of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Clark, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Mackey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Oliver N. Blaise III, J.), entered June 26, 2023 in Broome County, which dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

Insofar as is relevant here, petitioner, who stands convicted of rape in the third degree, criminal sexual act in the third degree and sexual abuse in the first degree and is a risk level three sex offender, was released to parole supervision in October 2020 subject to various terms and conditions. Following a search of petitioner’s residence in August 2021, petitioner was charged with violating numerous conditions of his release. At the conclusion of the ensuing hearings, an Administrative Law Judge revoked petitioner’s parole and ordered that he be held until his maximum expiration date. That determination was upheld upon administrative review. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 seeking a writ of habeas corpus and contending, among other things, that his parole revocation hearing was untimely and that there was insufficient evidence to support the sustained violations. Following a hearing in June 2023, Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s application, prompting this appeal.

The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner reached the maximum expiration date of his postrelease supervision on January 17, 2024, and a review of respondent’s records confirms that petitioner has been discharged from custody. As petitioner is no longer in custody, habeas corpus relief is not available (see People ex rel. Soto v. Board of Parole, 210 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 177 N.Y.S.3d 805 [3d Dept. 2022]; People ex rel. McAdoo v. Taylor, 31 A.D.3d 847, 848, 818 N.Y.S.2d 847 [3d Dept. 2006]). Further, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980]; compare People ex rel....