From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of De Grijze v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 15, 1999
260 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 15, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.).


Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a September 20, 1997 determination which found him guilty of violating various prison disciplinary rules following a tier II disciplinary hearing. Supreme Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the Statute of Limitations and we affirm.

The determination was affirmed by respondent Superintendent on September 30, 1997. While petitioner also sought administrative review of the initial determination from respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services, the Commissioner informed him on September 26, 1997 that review at that level was unavailable. Thereafter, on October 10, 1997, in response to petitioner's "letter of reconsideration", the Commissioner again stated that "[t]here will be no review at this level".

Contrary to petitioner's contention on appeal, his request for reconsideration did not toll the four-month Statute of Limitations period ( see, Matter of Arce v. Selsky, 233 A.D.2d 641, 642). Accordingly, given that the order to show cause was not signed until March 2, 1998, well beyond the four-month Statute of Limitations period ( see, CPLR 217), Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as time barred.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of De Grijze v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 15, 1999
260 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of De Grijze v. Goord

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RICHARD De GRIJZE, Appellant, v. GLENN GOORD, as…

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

Date published: Apr 15, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 532

Citing Cases

Verges v. Sabourin

We affirm. The four-month statute of limitations period begins to run when petitioner is notified of…

Thorne v. LaClair

Inasmuch as petitioner did not commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding within four months of receiving the…