From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruffin v. Joy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

90627

Decided and Entered: October 24, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered August 6, 2001 in Greene County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as time barred.

Walter Ruffin, Malone, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Wayne L. Benjamin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge an amended determination, issued October 6, 2000, denying his request to participate in the temporary release program at the correctional facility in which he was incarcerated. Supreme Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217). We affirm.

In general, the limitations period begins to run in a CPLR article 78 proceeding when a petitioner receives notice of the final administrative determination (see Matter of Biondo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 N.Y.2d 832, 834). In this matter, Supreme Court determined that petitioner would have received notice of the final determination of October 6, 2000 by mail no later than October 11, 2000; hence, the statute of limitations expired February 11, 2001. The instant proceeding, however, was not commenced until March 27, 2001. Contrary to petitioner's contention, his requests for reconsideration (the last was mailed March 2, 2001) did not extend or toll the statute of limitations (see Matter of Jenkins v. Goord, 288 A.D.2d 732, appeal dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 748; Matter of De Grijze v. Goord, 260 A.D.2d 836). As the record establishes that the clerk of the court did not receive the necessary papers until after the statute of limitations had expired, the proceeding was properly dismissed as time barred (see Matter of Ali v. Goord, 284 A.D.2d 668).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Ruffin v. Joy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 2002
298 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Ruffin v. Joy

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WALTER RUFFIN, Appellant, v. DEBRA JOY, as Director of…

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

Date published: Oct 24, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 530

Citing Cases

Reynoso v. Mgginnis

After Supreme Court converted it to a CPLR article 78 proceeding, respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding…

Martin v. Goord

We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as the July 18, 2001 determination denying petitioner's application for…