Dunkley v. Dillon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunkley v. Dillon

41 A.D.3d 714, 836 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedJune 19, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 714 (Dunkley v. Dillon) 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

Dunkley v. Dillon, 41 A.D.3d 714, 836 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent to disclose a written statement pertaining to a criminal conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated May 1, 2006, which denied, without prejudice to renew, his petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to properly file the initiatory documents with “the clerk of the court in the county in which the action or special proceeding is brought” (CPLR 304; see Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 NY3d 155, 158 [2006]; Matter of Allstate Indent. Co. v Martinez, 4 AD3d 422 [2004]; Matter of Walker v State of N.Y., Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 300 AD2d 958, 958-959 [2002]; Matter of Winston v Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Bd., 224 AD2d 160, 163 [1996]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent to disclose a written statement pertaining to a criminal conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated May 1, 2006, which denied, without prejudice to renew, his petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to properly file the initiatory documents with “the clerk of the court in the county in which the action or special proceeding is brought” (CPLR 304; see Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ., 6 NY3d 155, 158 [2006]; Matter of Allstate Indent. Co. v Martinez, 4 AD3d 422 [2004]; Matter of Walker v State of N.Y., Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 300 AD2d 958, 958-959 [2002]; Matter of Winston v Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Bd., 224 AD2d 160, 163 [1996]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 714, 836 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunkley-v-dillon-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack