From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huber v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 2001
284 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 14, 2001.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered May 22, 2000 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as time barred.

Stuart Huber, Huntington, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating various prison disciplinary rules. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding as untimely commenced (see, CPLR 217) and this appeal ensued. Our review of the record reveals that petitioner's affidavit in support of the order to show cause and verified petition were not received by the clerk of the court until the day after the four-month Statute of Limitations period expired. Thus, the papers were "not timely filed even under the procedure for commencement of actions and proceedings by indigent prison inmates established in CPLR 1101(f)" (Matter of Grant v. Senkowski, 95 N.Y.2d 605, 610). Accordingly, we find that the proceeding was properly dismissed as time barred. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Huber v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 14, 2001
284 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Huber v. Selsky

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF STUART HUBER, Appellant, v. DONALD SELSKY, as Director of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 14, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 306

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Goord

Respondent does not dispute Supreme Court's finding that petitioner's papers were actually received several…

In the Matter of Allen

Nevertheless, his CPLR article 78 proceeding was not commenced until September 9, 2002 (see Matter of Grant…