Dawes v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dawes v. Selsky

203 A.D.2d 845, 612 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451

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

DecidedApril 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 845 (Dawes v. Selsky) 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

Dawes v. Selsky, 203 A.D.2d 845, 612 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered November 8, 1993 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time barred.

By this proceeding, petitioner challenges a determination, dated January 22, 1992, affirming on administrative appeal a finding that he was guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner admits that the order to show cause and petition were not served on respondent until June 22 or 24, [846]*8461992, at which time the proceeding commenced. On the evidence presented, we find that Supreme Court properly granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding as time barred. Any remaining contentions advanced by respondent have been considered and found lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., 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 (Hughes, J.), entered November 8, 1993 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time barred.

By this proceeding, petitioner challenges a determination, dated January 22, 1992, affirming on administrative appeal a finding that he was guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner admits that the order to show cause and petition were not served on respondent until June 22 or 24, [846]*8461992, at which time the proceeding commenced. On the evidence presented, we find that Supreme Court properly granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding as time barred. Any remaining contentions advanced by respondent have been considered and found lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 845, 612 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawes-v-selsky-nyappdiv-1994.