Lebron v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lebron v. Smith

40 A.D.3d 515, 837 N.Y.S.2d 74

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

DecidedMay 29, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 515 (Lebron v. Smith) 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

Lebron v. Smith, 40 A.D.3d 515, 837 N.Y.S.2d 74 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2005, dismissing this proceeding for FOIL requests and recalculation of jail time credit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to rebut the District Attorney’s showing that these FOIL requests were duplicative of prior requests that had been denied, where judicial review was dismissed as untimely (Matter of Mendez v New York City Police Dept., 260 AD2d 262 [1999]). Petitioner has also failed to describe the documents sought with sufficient specificity as to permit respondent to identify and locate them (see Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Mitchell v Slade, 173 AD2d 226, 227 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 863 [1991]).

Petitioner’s claim for additional jail-time credit is barred by res judicata. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2005, dismissing this proceeding for FOIL requests and recalculation of jail time credit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to rebut the District Attorney’s showing that these FOIL requests were duplicative of prior requests that had been denied, where judicial review was dismissed as untimely (Matter of Mendez v New York City Police Dept., 260 AD2d 262 [1999]). Petitioner has also failed to describe the documents sought with sufficient specificity as to permit respondent to identify and locate them (see Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Mitchell v Slade, 173 AD2d 226, 227 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 863 [1991]).

Petitioner’s claim for additional jail-time credit is barred by res judicata. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 515, 837 N.Y.S.2d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lebron-v-smith-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack