Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: MANUEL MOSLEY, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. MALCOLM R. CULLY, SUPERINTENDENT, COLLINS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS. MANUEL MOSLEY, PETITIONER–APPELLANT PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination, following a tier II disciplinary hearing, that he violated an inmate rule. Supreme Court properly granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition. The record establishes that the proceeding was untimely inasmuch as it was commenced more than four months after the final administrative determination (see CPLR 217[1]; Matter of Jackson v. Fischer, 78 AD3d 1335, 1335, lv denied 16 NY3d 705). Petitioner contends that the proceeding was timely insofar as it challenged the denial of his grievance related to the inmate rule violation, and that the court therefore erred in failing to rule on the merits of that challenge. That contention lacks merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that the proceeding was timely with respect to the denial of petitioner's grievance, we conclude that the allegations of the petition “were not ‘sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice’ “ that petitioner was also challenging the denial of his grievance, and thus the court had no reason to consider that purported challenge (Matter of Abreu v. Hogan, 72 AD3d 1143, 1143, appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836, quoting CPLR 3013).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–00007
Decided: June 20, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)