Rivera v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Coughlin

206 A.D.2d 589, 616 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 589 (Rivera v. Coughlin) 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

Rivera v. Coughlin, 206 A.D.2d 589, 616 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered January 11, 1994 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as untimely.

Petitioner requested expungement of a determination which found him guilty of possessing a weapon. The request was denied and petitioner then commenced this proceeding for the same relief. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as untimely. We affirm. Simply put, petitioner failed to commence this proceeding within four months of when the determination being challenged became final and binding upon him.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 (Hughes, J.), entered January 11, 1994 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as untimely.

Petitioner requested expungement of a determination which found him guilty of possessing a weapon. The request was denied and petitioner then commenced this proceeding for the same relief. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as untimely. We affirm. Simply put, petitioner failed to commence this proceeding within four months of when the determination being challenged became final and binding upon him.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 589, 616 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1994.