From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shields v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 6, 2015
131 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

519865

08-06-2015

In the Matter of Eric J. SHIELDS, Appellant, v. Albert PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Eric J. Shields, Moravia, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.


Eric J. Shields, Moravia, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Elliot, J.), entered June 4, 2014 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 challenging two prison disciplinary determinations. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the proceeding was not commenced within the four-month statute of limitations provided in CPLR 217(1). Supreme Court granted the motion and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Petitioner received notification that the challenged disciplinary determinations had been administratively affirmed on February 15, 2013 and on March 12, 2013. Given that the instant proceeding was not commenced until November 21, 2013, more than four months thereafter (see CPLR 217[1] ), it was clearly time-barred (see Matter of Jackson v. Fischer, 78 A.D.3d 1335, 909 N.Y.S.2d 681 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 705, 2011 WL 536609 [2011] ; Matter of Smith v. Goord, 42 A.D.3d 839, 838 N.Y.S.2d 922 [2007] ). Petitioner's request for reconsideration did not operate to toll the statute of limitations (see Matter of Savinon v. Bezio, 79 A.D.3d 1519, 912 N.Y.S.2d 456 [2010] ; Matter of Jenkins v. Goord, 288 A.D.2d 732, 733, 732 N.Y.S.2d 915 [2001], appeal dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 748, 742 N.Y.S.2d 606, 769 N.E.2d 353 [2002] ). Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. In view of this disposition, we are foreclosed from addressing the merits of petitioner's claims.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

PETERS, P.J., GARRY, EGAN JR. and LYNCH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shields v. Prack

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Aug 6, 2015
131 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Shields v. Prack

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Eric J. SHIELDS, Appellant, v. Albert PRACK, as Director…

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

Date published: Aug 6, 2015

Citations

131 A.D.3d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
13 N.Y.S.3d 916
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 6462

Citing Cases

Mercado v. Rodriguez

We affirm. Inasmuch as petitioner did not commence the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding within four months…

Mercado v. Rodriguez

We affirm. Inasmuch as petitioner did not commence the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding within four months…