Matter of Rich v. Martuscello

── Matter of Rich v. Martuscello ── Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Matter of Rich v Martuscello - 2026 NY Slip Op 03214 <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Matter of Rich v Martuscello</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03214</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Third Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>In the Matter of Gabriel Rich, Petitioner,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered:May 21, 2026</p> <p>CV-25-1271</p> <p>Calendar Date: April 17, 2026</p> <p>Before: Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Fisher, Mackey And Corcoran, JJ.</p> <div> <p>Gabriel Rich, Rome, petitioner pro se.</p> <p>Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.</p> <p>Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a tier III disciplinary hearing finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's account. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot (<i>see Matter of Evans v Rodriguez</i>, 244 AD3d 1366, 1366 [3d Dept 2025]; <i>Matter of McKnight v Kopp</i>, 241 AD3d 1668, 1668 [3d Dept 2025]). As the record reflects that petitioner paid a reduced filing fee of $15, and he has requested reimbursement thereof, we grant his request and direct respondent to reimburse him for that amount (<i>see Matter of Evans v Rodriguez</i>, 244 AD3d at 1366-1367; <i>Matter of Bruno v Martuscello</i>, 237 AD3d 1403, 1403 [3d Dept 2025]).</p> <p>Garry, P.J., Pritzker, Fisher, Mackey and Corcoran, JJ., concur.</p> <p>ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs, but with disbursements in the amount of $15.</p> </div> <div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <