Fulton v. Futia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fulton v. Futia

71 A.D.3d 1356, 896 N.Y.S.2d 694

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1356 (Fulton v. Futia) 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

Fulton v. Futia, 71 A.D.3d 1356, 896 N.Y.S.2d 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered May 27, 2009 in Greene County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, acting pro se, prepared the order to show cause commencing this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate that he pursued an administrative appeal, Supreme Court properly concluded that dismissal for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies was appropriate (see Matter of Dagnone v Goord, 298 AD2d 789, 790 [2002]; Matter of Tafari v McGinnis, 287 AD2d 844, 845 [2001]). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the dismissal of the petition.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Malone Jr. 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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered May 27, 2009 in Greene County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, acting pro se, prepared the order to show cause commencing this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate that he pursued an administrative appeal, Supreme Court properly concluded that dismissal for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies was appropriate (see Matter of Dagnone v Goord, 298 AD2d 789, 790 [2002]; Matter of Tafari v McGinnis, 287 AD2d 844, 845 [2001]). Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the dismissal of the petition.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1356, 896 N.Y.S.2d 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulton-v-futia-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack