Di Rose v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Rose v. Coughlin

221 A.D.2d 732, 633 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 732 (Di Rose v. Coughlin) 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

Di Rose v. Coughlin, 221 A.D.2d 732, 633 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered August 11,1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s grievance.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking the return of certain property that had been confiscated from his cell. Supreme Court dismissed the petition upon the ground of res judicata. In view of the fact that petitioner commenced a previous CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking the same relief, which we found was properly dismissed for untimeliness (see, Matter of Di Rose v New York State Dept, of Corrections, Inspector General’s Off., 221 AD2d 736 [decided herewith]), we concur with Supreme Court’s ruling that this proceeding is barred by res judicata. We do, however, agree with petitioner that the award of motion costs to respondent was inappropriate under the circumstances.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, without costs, by deleting so much thereof as imposed $20 in motion costs upon petitioner, and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered August 11,1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s grievance.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking the return of certain property that had been confiscated from his cell. Supreme Court dismissed the petition upon the ground of res judicata. In view of the fact that petitioner commenced a previous CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking the same relief, which we found was properly dismissed for untimeliness (see, Matter of Di Rose v New York State Dept, of Corrections, Inspector General’s Off., 221 AD2d 736 [decided herewith]), we concur with Supreme Court’s ruling that this proceeding is barred by res judicata. We do, however, agree with petitioner that the award of motion costs to respondent was inappropriate under the circumstances.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, without costs, by deleting so much thereof as imposed $20 in motion costs upon petitioner, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 732, 633 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-rose-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack