Finney v. Kuhlmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finney v. Kuhlmann

152 A.D.2d 776, 544 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 776 (Finney v. Kuhlmann) 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

Finney v. Kuhlmann, 152 A.D.2d 776, 544 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hanofee, J.), entered October 27, 1988 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Petitioner, an inmate acting pro se, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. Although the petition was timely submitted to Supreme Court, the proceeding was dismissed for failure to effect service before the Statute of Limitations expired. Because service was untimely due to no fault of petitioner, respondents waive the defense of the Statute of Limitations. Accordingly, the Attorney-General concurs with petitioner’s request for reversal. The matter should be returned to Supreme Court to allow respondents to file an answer.

Judgment reversed, on the facts, without costs, and motion denied. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hanofee, J.), entered October 27, 1988 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Petitioner, an inmate acting pro se, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. Although the petition was timely submitted to Supreme Court, the proceeding was dismissed for failure to effect service before the Statute of Limitations expired. Because service was untimely due to no fault of petitioner, respondents waive the defense of the Statute of Limitations. Accordingly, the Attorney-General concurs with petitioner’s request for reversal. The matter should be returned to Supreme Court to allow respondents to file an answer.

Judgment reversed, on the facts, without costs, and motion denied. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 776, 544 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finney-v-kuhlmann-nyappdiv-1989.