From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gomez v. Hollis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 2, 2000
277 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 2, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.), entered February 22, 2000 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for lack of standing.

Nelson Gomez, Comstock, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Frank Brady of counsel), Albany, for respondents.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner pleaded guilty to violating the prison disciplinary rules which prohibit possessing contraband, smuggling and drug possession in connection with a March 14, 1999 visit with his wife. In addition to other penalties, petitioner's right to visitation was revoked for 11 years. Thereafter, petitioner's wife was notified that her visitation privileges with petitioner had been revoked as a result of the drug-smuggling incident and petitioner's guilty plea to the charges stemming therefrom. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination revoking his wife's visitation privileges. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and this appeal ensued.

We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner confuses his disciplinary determination with the separate determination which revoked his wife's visitation privileges pursuant to 7 NYCRR part 200 (see, Matter of Inman v. Coughlin, 156 A.D.2d 786). The fact that petitioner did not challenge his disciplinary determination does not give him standing to challenge the revocation of his wife's visitation nor to protest the implication that she was involved in the drug-smuggling incident. Moreover, petitioner's wife failed to avail herself of the procedure to contest the revocation of visitation privileges despite being notified of the opportunity to do so.

Finally, we reject petitioner's conclusory assertion that the termination of his wife's visitation rights violated his due process rights.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Gomez v. Hollis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 2, 2000
277 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Gomez v. Hollis

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NELSON GOMEZ, Appellant, v. MELVIN L. HOLLIS, as…

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

Date published: Nov 2, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 826

Citing Cases

Schleede v. Rabsatt

the investigation, as well as the transcript of the telephone conversation between petitioner and his…

In the Matter of Grigger v. Goord

oord, 8 AD3d 850, 852), the privilege of visitation afforded by the applicable regulations ( see 7 NYCRR…