Harvey v. Bradt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harvey v. Bradt

91 A.D.3d 1222, 936 N.Y.2d 920

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1222 (Harvey v. Bradt) 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

Harvey v. Bradt, 91 A.D.3d 1222, 936 N.Y.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

We affirm. The proceeding was not commenced within four months of the date that petitioner received notice of the final and binding prison disciplinary determination (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Spencer v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 78 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2010]; Matter of Cunningham v Fischer, 57 AD3d 1142 [2008]). The last day of the four-month period, August 9, 2009, fell on a Sunday giving petitioner until the following day to commence a timely proceeding (see General Construction Law § 25-a [1]; Matter of Taylor v Dufrain, 278 AD2d 681, 682 [2000]). Since he did not, however, commence the proceeding until the day after that, the proceeding was untimely and Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition on that basis. Accordingly, we need not address the merits of petitioner’s claims.

Mercure, A.PJ., Lahtinen, Spain, Stein 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

We affirm. The proceeding was not commenced within four months of the date that petitioner received notice of the final and binding prison disciplinary determination (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Spencer v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 78 AD3d 1342, 1343 [2010]; Matter of Cunningham v Fischer, 57 AD3d 1142 [2008]). The last day of the four-month period, August 9, 2009, fell on a Sunday giving petitioner until the following day to commence a timely proceeding (see General Construction Law § 25-a [1]; Matter of Taylor v Dufrain, 278 AD2d 681, 682 [2000]). Since he did not, however, commence the proceeding until the day after that, the proceeding was untimely and Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition on that basis. Accordingly, we need not address the merits of petitioner’s claims.

Mercure, A.PJ., Lahtinen, Spain, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1222, 936 N.Y.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-bradt-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack