IN THE MATTER OF CHAN v. TRAVIS

Kane, J.

Petitioner, who was serving a prison sentence, had his first appearance before the Board of Parole in 2001. After the Board denied parole and his administrative appeal went unanswered, petitioner commenced this proceeding to annul the Board's determination. In 2003, Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination and remanded the matter to the Board for rehearing. Respondent appealed, and petitioner cross-appealed the court's dismissal of one of his claims. Shortly thereafter, petitioner appeared before the Board at his regularly scheduled review, not a rehearing of the first review. At that time, the Board granted petitioner parole.

Initially, since petitioner did not appear in this appeal, his cross appeal is deemed abandoned. As to respondent's appeal, it is moot based on the Board's grant of parole to petitioner, and we find no exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Lichtel v. Travis, 287 A.D.2d 837, 838). We further decline to exercise our discretion, as urged by respondent, to vacate Supreme Court's judgment but instead simply dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Sarbro IX v. McGowan, 271 A.D.2d 829, 830).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.