Matter of Walker v Fischer

Annotate this Case
Matter of Walker v Fischer 2013 NY Slip Op 01584 Decided on March 14, 2013 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: March 14, 2013
514387

[*1]In the Matter of SHERMAN WALKER, Appellant,

v

BRIAN FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

Calendar Date: January 24, 2013
Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ.


Sherman Walker, Albion, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany
(Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered March 5, 2012 in St. Lawrence County, which denied petitioner's application for an order to show cause to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Petitioner, an inmate currently serving an aggregate prison term of 19½ to 39 years in prison (see People ex rel. Walker v Yelich, 71 AD3d 1348 [2010]), filed a verified petition claiming that his 602 days of jail time credit was not applied to the aggregate maximum term and minimum period of his underlying prison sentences. Supreme Court, treating the petition as an ex parte application for the issuance of an order to show cause to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding, denied the request and dismissed the petition on the basis that petitioner's allegation is contradicted by the exhibits he submitted in support thereof. Because the denial of an ex parte order to show cause is not appealable, the appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Reed v Fischer, 92 AD3d 1001 [2012]; Matter of Tafari v Rock, 85 AD3d 1485 [2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 949 [2011]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. [*2]

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, 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.