Matter of Pine v Annucci

Annotate this Case
Matter of Pine v Annucci 2017 NY Slip Op 07903 Decided on November 9, 2017 Appellate Division, Third 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 and Entered: November 9, 2017
524368

[*1]In the Matter of JAMES R. PINE, Appellant,

v

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Calendar Date: September 19, 2017
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ.

James R. Pine, Stormville, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Landers of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Collins, J.), entered December 14, 2016 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 proceeding challenging a tier II determination finding him guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules. In an order to show cause, petitioner was directed to serve the order to show cause, petition, exhibits and any supporting affidavits upon respondent and the Attorney General on or before September 23, 2016. Supreme Court thereafter granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition, finding that petitioner failed to comply with the service requirements set forth in the order to show cause.

Petitioner appeals.

Petitioner does not raise in his brief any arguments concerning the propriety of Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, any such arguments are deemed abandoned (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 125 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2015]; Matter of Wilson v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1053, 1053 [2012]). With regard to the issues raised, they are not properly before us.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.



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.