Fulton v. Reynolds

83 A.D.3d 1308, 920 N.Y.S.2d 740
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 21, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1308 (Fulton v. Reynolds) 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. Reynolds, 83 A.D.3d 1308, 920 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McKeighan, J.), entered June 2, 2010 in Washington County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

After petitioner, a prison inmate, was denied three cans of nuts and a package of cookies that were mailed to him, he sent a complaint to the Inspector General’s office. Thereafter, petitioner filed a separate grievance with the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (hereinafter IGRC), contending that he received a call out slip for the package room too late for him to receive his package that same day. The grievance was denied by both the IGRC and the facility Superintendent on appeal. However, petitioner did not appeal that denial to the Central Office Review Committee. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Petitioner now appeals and we affirm.

Inasmuch as the complaint was a proper subject for the inmate grievance procedure, petitioner accordingly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing a grievance with the clerk of the IGRC (see 7 NYCRR 701.5 [a] [1]; Matter of Torres v Fischer, 73 AD3d 1355, 1356 [2010]). Similarly, with regard to the grievance, petitioner did not appeal the Superin[1309]*1309tendent’s denial to the Central Office Review Committee as required (see 7 NYCRR 701.5 [d]; Matter of Fernandez v Goord, 53 AD3d 961, 961-962 [2008]). As such, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition due to petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, 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 Johnson v. Uhler
2022 NY Slip Op 03421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Green v. Kirkpatrick
2018 NY Slip Op 8406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Jackson v. Administration of Bare Hill Correctional Facility
139 A.D.3d 1191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
MCKETHAN, WILLIAM v. STALLONE, DAVID
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
McKethan v. Stallone
134 A.D.3d 1561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
ALVAREZ, RAMON v. FISCHER, BRIAN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Alvarez v. Fischer
94 A.D.3d 1404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 A.D.3d 1308, 920 N.Y.S.2d 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulton-v-reynolds-nyappdiv-2011.