Smith v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Goord

42 A.D.3d 839, 838 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedJuly 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 839 (Smith v. Goord) 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

Smith v. Goord, 42 A.D.3d 839, 838 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered October 11, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review four determinations of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging four separate disciplinary determinations rendered against him. However, inasmuch as the controlling four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]) had long since expired with respect to each of the final determinations by the time that petitioner commenced this proceeding, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as untimely (see Matter of Morales v Selsky, 288 AD2d 805, 806 [2001]). In view of our disposition, we need not address the remaining contentions set forth in petitioner’s brief.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 (McNamara, J.), entered October 11, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review four determinations of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging four separate disciplinary determinations rendered against him. However, inasmuch as the controlling four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]) had long since expired with respect to each of the final determinations by the time that petitioner commenced this proceeding, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as untimely (see Matter of Morales v Selsky, 288 AD2d 805, 806 [2001]). In view of our disposition, we need not address the remaining contentions set forth in petitioner’s brief.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.3d 839, 838 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-goord-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack