From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 27, 2019
173 A.D.3d 1579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

527377

06-27-2019

In the Matter of Dontie S. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Dontie S. Mitchell, Comstock, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.


Dontie S. Mitchell, Comstock, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Clark, J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nichols, J.), entered May 24, 2018 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered June 29, 2018 in Albany County, which denied petitioner's motion to reargue.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination rendered on July 24, 2017. Supreme Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to comply with the pleading requirements set forth in CPLR 3013 and 3014. Petitioner's subsequent motion to reargue was denied. Petitioner appeals from both judgments.

As no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue, the appeal from the judgment entered June 29, 2018 must be dismissed (see Matter of Barnes v. Annucci, 144 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 40 N.Y.S.3d 284 [2016] ).

Respondent now withdraws his objection to the sufficiency of the petition. Our review of the petition confirms that the petition is sufficiently particular as to the disciplinary determination at issue and the challenge thereto (see CPLR 3013, 3014 ). As such, the petition should not have been dismissed. Given that respondent has not had the opportunity to submit an answer, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings (see Matter of Hammond v. LaValley, 117 A.D.3d 1266, 1266, 984 N.Y.S.2d 898 [2014] ; Matter of Sital v. Fischer, 76 A.D.3d 723, 724, 905 N.Y.S.2d 529 [2010] ).

Clark, J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment entered May 24, 2018 is reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court to permit respondent to serve an answer within 20 days of the date of this Court's decision.

ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment entered June 29, 2018 is dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 27, 2019
173 A.D.3d 1579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Mitchell v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DONTIE S. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 27, 2019

Citations

173 A.D.3d 1579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
173 A.D.3d 1579
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5243

Citing Cases

Rosen v. Mosby

Nevertheless, the appeal from the judgment brings up for review the August 2016 and January 2017 orders (see…

Ryhal v. Annucci

However, petitioner's challenge to the disciplinary determination has not been rendered moot by his…