From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mixon v. McMahon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

91953

February 13, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered October 24, 2002 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as time barred.

Charlie Mixon, Elmira, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Petitioner, an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, made five separate Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) (hereinafter FOIL) requests to respondents for information gathered during the investigation of various homicides for which petitioner was convicted. Following each FOIL request, respondents advised either that they did not have the records requested or that petitioner's request was duplicative of an earlier request and would not be reconsidered. Finally, petitioner made the instant FOIL request to which respondents replied that they previously had responded to such request and, hence, the application would not be reconsidered. Petitioner thereafter sought administrative appeal and, upon denial thereof, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following joinder of issue and respondents' interposition of objections in point of law, Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. The record makes plain, as conceded by petitioner, that the instant FOIL request is substantially similar to petitioner's prior applications, the last of which was denied nearly two years ago. Accordingly, this proceeding constitutes nothing more than a belated attempt to challenge respondents' previous responses to petitioner's requests and is, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations (see Matter of Van Steenburg v. Thomas, 242 A.D.2d 802, 803, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 803).

Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Mixon v. McMahon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Mixon v. McMahon

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHARLIE MIXON, Appellant, v. JAMES W. McMAHON, as…

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

Date published: Feb 13, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
754 N.Y.S.2d 589

Citing Cases

Mixon v. Sedita

He has also sought various other collateral relief (such as claims under New York's Freedom of Information…

In the Matter of Vann v. Callahan

Upon our review of the record, we find that petitioner's instant FOIL request is essentially identical to his…