Majority
Respondents claim that the relief sought in the petition is moot, because the Comptroller has agreed to administratively annul the determination made by the Hearing Officer and “return the matter to the hearing officer” so that the medical records can be considered in connection with petitioner’s application. We agree, and conclude that petitioner has now been provided with all the relief he is entitled (see Matter of Neeley v Town of Colonie, 79 AD3d 1560 , 1561 [2010]; see also Matter of Duve v Richards, 81 AD3d 1226 , 1227 [2011]), namely, an annulment of the determination denying his application for benefits and a ruling stipulating that his medical reports would be admitted into evidence at the hearing. As for petitioner’s claim that the matter is not moot, we note that should this administrative rule be used to bar the admission of medical reports in future proceedings, its application would be subject to appropriate appellate review (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707 , 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Cannon v City of Watervliet, 263 AD2d 920 , 921 [1999], Iv denied 94 NY2d 756 [1999]; Matter of Wellman v Surles, 185 AD2d 464 , 466 [1992]). Inasmuch as the determination denying petitioner’s application has been vacated and his medical report will be considered at the hearing, the petition must be dismissed.[1]
* Petitioner also argues that the Hearing Officer found that the rule served to bar him from calling the physician who prepared the report as a witness at the hearing. However, the record reveals that petitioner never asked that the physician be called as a witness but, instead, simply argued that the report should be received into evidence because the physician who authored it could be called to testify at the hearing. As such, the potential issue that could be *859 raised by applying this rule to bar the testimony of such a witness is not before us and cannot serve to alter our finding that the matter as it now stands is moot.
Cases cited
- Neeley v. Town of Colonie 79 AD3d 1560 at 1561 p. 858
- Duve ex rel. People v. Richards 81 AD3d 1226 at 1227 p. 858
- Hearst Corp. v. Clyne 50 NY2d 707 at 714-715 p. 858
- Cannon v. City of Watervliet 263 AD2d 920 at 921 p. 858
- Wellman v. Surles 185 AD2d 464 at 466 p. 858