From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morales v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 29, 2001
288 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

noting the four-month statute of limitations period applicable to Article 78 petitions

Summary of this case from Phelan v. Superintendent of the Great Meadow Corr. Facility

Opinion

November 29, 2001.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered February 20, 2001 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding as time barred.

Wilfredo Morales, Attica, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and, Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Upon administrative appeal, the determination was affirmed and petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding as untimely commenced and this appeal ensued.

Our review of the record indicates that petitioner received notice of the adverse administrative determination on or about December 23, 1999, triggering the four-month Statute of Limitations period within which to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination (see, CPLR 217; Matter of James v. Goord, 281 A.D.2d 825, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 721 [Sept. 13, 2001]). Petitioner's verified petition was filed in Supreme Court on September 20, 2000 and an order to show cause was issued by the court and filed on October 6, 2000, well beyond the expiration of the limitations period (see, Matter of Grant v. Senkowski, 95 N.Y.2d 605, 610; Matter of James v. Goord, supra). Accordingly, we find that the proceeding was properly dismissed as time barred. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Morales v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 29, 2001
288 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

noting the four-month statute of limitations period applicable to Article 78 petitions

Summary of this case from Phelan v. Superintendent of the Great Meadow Corr. Facility

noting the four-month statute of limitations period applicable to Article 78 petitions

Summary of this case from Plater v. Superintendent
Case details for

Morales v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WILFREDO MORALES, Appellant, v. DONALD SELSKY, as…

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

Date published: Nov 29, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 760

Citing Cases

Smith v. Goord

Petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging four separate disciplinary…

Plater v. Superintendent

Walton v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Srvcs, 863 N.E.2d 1001, 1005 (N.Y. 2007) (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. §…