Escalera v. State

67 A.D.3d 1137, 887 N.Y.S.2d 873
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1137 (Escalera v. State) 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
Escalera v. State, 67 A.D.3d 1137, 887 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered January 26, 2009 in Franklin County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 purportedly challenging a July 2006 determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules and imposing upon him, among other things, 120 days of confinement in the special housing unit. However, the petition contains only descriptions of various instances in which petitioner was assaulted by correction officers and received substandard medical treatment and refers to six apparently unrelated disciplinary proceedings spanning from August 2006 through December 2006. Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the petition, sua sponte, finding that it lacked the necessary specificity. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Pursuant to CPLR 3013, statements contained in a pleading must be “sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of [1138]*1138transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.” Here, we agree with Supreme Court that the petition failed to meet this standard and, therefore, was properly dismissed (see Matter of Berrian v Carpenter, 19 AD3d 769, 770 [2005]; Matter of Johnson v Goord, 290 AD2d 844, 844-845 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, 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 Roesch v. State of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 05642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Barnes v. Fischer
135 A.D.3d 1249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Garraway v. Fischer
106 A.D.3d 1301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Richards v. Cuomo
88 A.D.3d 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Pettus v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
77 A.D.3d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Abreu v. Hogan
72 A.D.3d 1143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 A.D.3d 1137, 887 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escalera-v-state-nyappdiv-2009.