From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Raqiyb v. State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 5, 1998
247 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 5, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.).


Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner's application seeking to challenge a January 25, 1996 determination denying him parole release on the ground that petitioner failed to commence this review proceeding within four months of the determination (see, CPLR 217; Matter of Hauver v. New York State Div. of Parole, 236 A.D.2d 751, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 815). Moreover, to the extent that petitioner's application sought to correct perceived errors in his institutional record, we agree with Supreme Court's conclusion that because petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative avenues of relief available to him to access portions of his institutional records (see, 7 NYCRR 5.20), to challenge inaccuracies contained therein (see, 7 NYCRR 5.50) and to appeal from any unfavorable determination (see, 7 NYCRR 5.52), the petition must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (see, Matter of Pickett v. Long, 229 A.D.2d 802; Matter of Sommer v. Jones, 96 A.D.2d 624, lv denied 60 N.Y.2d 555).

As this is petitioner's third attempt to litigate the same issue — namely, the inaccuracy (since corrected) of a reference to his murder victim as being pregnant — petitioner should be aware that any further attempt to litigate this issue may subject him to sanctions (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]).

Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Raqiyb v. State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 5, 1998
247 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Raqiyb v. State Division of Parole

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HASAN RAQIYB, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 5, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 505

Citing Cases

Schendel v. Stanford

As the Board's decision does not evince "irrationality bordering on impropriety," nor was it arbitrary and…

Matter of Amaker v. Goord

Accordingly, notwithstanding petitioner's claim that he is seeking enforcement of the prohibition contained…