Ramirez v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. Scully

204 A.D.2d 459, 614 N.Y.S.2d 188

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

DecidedMay 9, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 459 (Ramirez v. Scully) 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

Ramirez v. Scully, 204 A.D.2d 459, 614 N.Y.S.2d 188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, dated September 17, 1991, which found the petitioner guilty of violations of certain disciplinary rules, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated March 30, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without cost or disbursements.

The filing of an order to show cause with the Clerk of the Supreme Court in January 1992, did not commence the instant proceeding (see, CPLR former 304). The proceeding was commenced by service of the order to show cause and petition upon the respondent in February 1992, more than four months after the determination under review. Therefore, the proceeding is time-barred (see, Matter of Ortiz v Scully, 202 AD2d 511). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, dated September 17, 1991, which found the petitioner guilty of violations of certain disciplinary rules, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated March 30, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without cost or disbursements.

The filing of an order to show cause with the Clerk of the Supreme Court in January 1992, did not commence the instant proceeding (see, CPLR former 304). The proceeding was commenced by service of the order to show cause and petition upon the respondent in February 1992, more than four months after the determination under review. Therefore, the proceeding is time-barred (see, Matter of Ortiz v Scully, 202 AD2d 511). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 459, 614 N.Y.S.2d 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-scully-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack