
    In the Matter of Johnathan Johnson, Appellant, v Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
    [45 NYS3d 697]
   Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered February 29, 2016 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, among other things, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, claimed that he was improperly denied a religious meal on February 26, 2015 while he was confined in his cell. He filed a grievance disputing the matter, but was advised by the Central Office Review Committee that his name was on the list of inmates who were to receive the religious meal. He then made a request under the Freedom of Information Law (see Public Officers Law art 6 [hereinafter FOIL]) for disclosure of the logbook containing the names of the correction officers assigned to his special housing unit when he was allegedly denied the religious meal so that he could name them in a civil rights action. His request was denied and he filed an administrative appeal. When his administrative appeal was not timely decided, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel disclosure. Thereafter, his administrative appeal was decided and he was provided with the logbook, the only redaction being the inmates’ names. Names of the officers on duty were not redacted. In light of this disclosure, respondent moved to dismiss the petition as moot. Petitioner, in turn, cross-moved to convert the proceeding to one for preaction discovery under CPLR 3102 (c). Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion and denied petitioner’s cross motion. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. The petition is clearly moot as disclosure of the logbook provided petitioner with the names of the correction officers on duty during the relevant time period and he has, thus, received all of the relief that he requested and to which he is entitled (see Matter of DeFreitas v New York State Police Crime Lab, 141 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2016]). In view of this, there is no basis upon which to convert the proceeding to one for preaction disclosure under CPLR 3102 (c).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.  