Brammer v. Ricks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brammer v. Ricks

309 A.D.2d 1034, 766 N.Y.S.2d 128, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10945

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1034 (Brammer v. Ricks) 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

Brammer v. Ricks, 309 A.D.2d 1034, 766 N.Y.S.2d 128, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered November 26, 2002 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as time-barred.

Petitioner attempted to commence this proceeding by means of an amended petition, seeking, inter alia, review of all prison [1035]*1035disciplinary determinations that found him guilty of violating urinalysis testing procedures since November 1995, on the ground that he suffers from shy bladder syndrome. Supreme Court properly dismissed the amended petition as barred by the applicable four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]). As the papers were not timely filed, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed (see Matter of Grant v Senkowski, 95 NY2d 605, 610 [2001]; Matter of Huber v Selsky, 284 AD2d 676 [2001]).

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 (Feldstein, J.), entered November 26, 2002 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as time-barred.

Petitioner attempted to commence this proceeding by means of an amended petition, seeking, inter alia, review of all prison [1035]*1035disciplinary determinations that found him guilty of violating urinalysis testing procedures since November 1995, on the ground that he suffers from shy bladder syndrome. Supreme Court properly dismissed the amended petition as barred by the applicable four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]). As the papers were not timely filed, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed (see Matter of Grant v Senkowski, 95 NY2d 605, 610 [2001]; Matter of Huber v Selsky, 284 AD2d 676 [2001]).

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)

309 A.D.2d 1034, 766 N.Y.S.2d 128, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brammer-v-ricks-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack