Matter of Lamonte Johnson v Donald Selsky
Annotate this Case
Matter of Johnson v Selsky
2003 NY Slip Op 18621 [1 AD3d 1064]
Decided on November 21, 2003
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on November 21, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1260 CA 02-02175
[*1]MATTER OF LAMONTE JOHNSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, ORDER
v
DONALD SELSKY, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL HOUSING/INMATE DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered August 5, 2002, which dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition.
LAMONTE JOHNSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Entered: November 21, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on November 21, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1260 CA 02-02175
[*1]MATTER OF LAMONTE JOHNSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, ORDER
v
DONALD SELSKY, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL HOUSING/INMATE DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered August 5, 2002, which dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition.
LAMONTE JOHNSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Entered: November 21, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
