Hakeem v. McSweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hakeem v. McSweeney

212 A.D.2d 916, 623 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1638

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered December 14, 1993 in Washington County, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

As the result of a disciplinary determination, a penalty was imposed against petitioner, a prison inmate, which included the loss of his right to receive packages. Petitioner commenced this proceeding claiming, inter alia, that packages containing legal supplies should not be denied inmates even where a loss of packages order is in effect. He contended that the imposition of this policy improperly resulted in the destruction of a package of legal supplies intended for him. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground, inter alia, that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the available grievance procedure. A review of the record in its entirety reveals that the court’s dismissal was in all respects proper and should be affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Peters and Spain, 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 (Berke, J.), entered December 14, 1993 in Washington County, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

As the result of a disciplinary determination, a penalty was imposed against petitioner, a prison inmate, which included the loss of his right to receive packages. Petitioner commenced this proceeding claiming, inter alia, that packages containing legal supplies should not be denied inmates even where a loss of packages order is in effect. He contended that the imposition of this policy improperly resulted in the destruction of a package of legal supplies intended for him. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground, inter alia, that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the available grievance procedure. A review of the record in its entirety reveals that the court’s dismissal was in all respects proper and should be affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Hakeem v. McSweeney, 212 A.D.2d 916, 623 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

212 A.D.2d 916 (Hakeem v. McSweeney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related