Acero v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acero v. New York State Board of Parole

308 A.D.2d 641, 764 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9552

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 641 (Acero v. New York State Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acero v. New York State Board of Parole, 308 A.D.2d 641, 764 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered June 7, 2002 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the revocation of his parole and the imposition of a seven-year time assessment. The petition was properly dismissed by Supreme Court as untimely as it exceeded the applicable four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; see also Matter of Grant v Senkowski, 95 NY2d 605 [2001]). Petitioner’s representations to the contrary have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered June 7, 2002 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the revocation of his parole and the imposition of a seven-year time assessment. The petition was properly dismissed by Supreme Court as untimely as it exceeded the applicable four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; see also Matter of Grant v Senkowski, 95 NY2d 605 [2001]). Petitioner’s representations to the contrary have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 641, 764 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acero-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack