Green v. Dubray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green v. Dubray

57 A.D.3d 1051, 867 N.Y.2d 709

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1051 (Green v. Dubray) 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

Green v. Dubray, 57 A.D.3d 1051, 867 N.Y.2d 709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner commenced this CFLR article 78 proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination. In the petition, petitioner did not set forth his allegations in plain and concise terms in consecutively numbered paragraphs in accordance with CPLR 3014. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on this basis. Supreme Court granted the motion and conditionally dismissed the petition unless petitioner served an amended petition complying with CPLR 3014 within 30 days. Petitioner did not serve an amended petition and he now appeals.

We affirm. CPLR 3014 explicitly provides that “[e]very pleading shall consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs.” The petition in the case at hand does not comply with these requirements as it contains no numbering and references documentation outside the petition. In such a situation, “the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the pleading with leave to replead” (Matter of Gerena v New York State Div. [1052]*1052of Parole, 266 AD2d 761, 762 [1999]). Inasmuch as Supreme Court granted such relief, we find no reason to disturb its decision.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Petitioner commenced this CFLR article 78 proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination. In the petition, petitioner did not set forth his allegations in plain and concise terms in consecutively numbered paragraphs in accordance with CPLR 3014. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on this basis. Supreme Court granted the motion and conditionally dismissed the petition unless petitioner served an amended petition complying with CPLR 3014 within 30 days. Petitioner did not serve an amended petition and he now appeals.

We affirm. CPLR 3014 explicitly provides that “[e]very pleading shall consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs.” The petition in the case at hand does not comply with these requirements as it contains no numbering and references documentation outside the petition. In such a situation, “the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the pleading with leave to replead” (Matter of Gerena v New York State Div. [1052]*1052of Parole, 266 AD2d 761, 762 [1999]). Inasmuch as Supreme Court granted such relief, we find no reason to disturb its decision.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1051, 867 N.Y.2d 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-dubray-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack