Opinion
2014-05-8
Olga PIEDRA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent–Respondent.
Olga Piedra, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Judith Vale of counsel), for respondent.
Olga Piedra, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Judith Vale of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti–Hughes, J.), entered December 12, 2012, which dismissed, withoutprejudice, the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent New York State Division of Parole, finding that petitioner violated the conditions of her parole, revoked her parole, and imposed an assessment of five months of additional imprisonment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly found that petitioner's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies precludes judicial review of respondent's determination ( see Sumner v. Hogan, 73 A.D.3d 618, 619–620, 901 N.Y.S.2d 236 [1st Dept.2010] ). Petitioner's assertion of constitutional claims does not excuse the lack of exhaustion, since these claims “require the resolution of factual issues reviewable at the administrative level” ( Town of Oyster Bay v. Kirkland, 19 N.Y.3d 1035, 1038, 954 N.Y.S.2d 769, 978 N.E.2d 1237 [2012],cert. denied––– U.S. –––– 133 S.Ct. 1502, 185 L.Ed.2d 550 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).