De Grijze v. Goord

260 A.D.2d 836, 689 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4023
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 836 (De Grijze v. Goord) 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
De Grijze v. Goord, 260 A.D.2d 836, 689 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered June 9, 1998 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as time barred.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a September 20, 1997 determination which found him guilty of violating various prison disciplinary rules following a tier II disciplinary hearing. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the Statute of Limitations and we affirm.

The determination was affirmed by respondent Superintendent on September 30, 1997. While petitioner also sought administrative review of the initial determination from respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services, the Commissioner informed him on September 26, 1997 that review at that level was unavailable. Thereafter, on October 10, 1997, in response to petitioner’s “letter of reconsideration”, the Commissioner again stated that “[t]here will be no review at this level”.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention on appeal, his request for reconsideration did not toll the four-month Statute of Limitations period (see, Matter of Arce v Selsky, 233 AD2d 641, 642). Accordingly, given that the order to show cause was not signed until March 2, 1998, well beyond the four-month Statute of Limitations period (see, CPLR 217), Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as time barred.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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

Related

Matter of Thorne v. LaClair
2018 NY Slip Op 7501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Mercado v. Rodriguez
2017 NY Slip Op 6689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Savinon v. Bezio
79 A.D.3d 1519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Spencer v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
78 A.D.3d 1342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Robinson v. Miller
306 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Verges v. Sabourin
298 A.D.2d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ruffin v. Joy
298 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Jenkins v. Goord
288 A.D.2d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D.2d 836, 689 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-grijze-v-goord-nyappdiv-1999.