Manfredi v. Coombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manfredi v. Coombe

238 A.D.2d 635, 656 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3182

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

DecidedApril 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 635 (Manfredi v. Coombe) 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

Manfredi v. Coombe, 238 A.D.2d 635, 656 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered May 22, 1996 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time barred.

Petitioner, a former attorney and currently an inmate in the State prison system, was classified as requiring central monitoring control. On July 26,1995 said classification was affirmed by respondent, thereby providing petitioner four months in which to appeal the determination (see, CPLR 217). In January 1996 petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination; however, Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was time barred. It is undisputed that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was commenced after the Statute of Limitations had expired. Petitioner’s argument regarding purported ambiguous language in respondent’s determination is merely an attempt to circumvent the four-month Statute of Limitations. Accordingly, we find the CPLR article 78 proceeding to be untimely commenced and, therefore, dismissal was proper (see, Matter of Barrett v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 653, 654, lv denied 83 NY2d 751).

Mikoll, J. P., White, 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 (Torraca, J.), entered May 22, 1996 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as time barred.

Petitioner, a former attorney and currently an inmate in the State prison system, was classified as requiring central monitoring control. On July 26,1995 said classification was affirmed by respondent, thereby providing petitioner four months in which to appeal the determination (see, CPLR 217). In January 1996 petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s determination; however, Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was time barred. It is undisputed that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was commenced after the Statute of Limitations had expired. Petitioner’s argument regarding purported ambiguous language in respondent’s determination is merely an attempt to circumvent the four-month Statute of Limitations. Accordingly, we find the CPLR article 78 proceeding to be untimely commenced and, therefore, dismissal was proper (see, Matter of Barrett v Coughlin, 199 AD2d 653, 654, lv denied 83 NY2d 751).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 635, 656 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manfredi-v-coombe-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack