AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of JAMES MOLLER, Appellant, v. ROBERT DENNISON, Respondent.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In July 2002 the petitioner was convicted, inter alia, of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree after shooting his wife with a shotgun as she was backing the family car out of the driveway.

Pursuant to the terms of his January 2006 supervised release, the petitioner was prohibited from associating in any way or communicating by any means with his wife without the permission of the respondent Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole. In June 2006 the petitioner applied to the respondent for permission to reside with his wife. The respondent summarily denied the application in July 2006, based on the existence of a "policy strictly prohibit[ing] the approval of a proposed residence . . . with any victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the parolee, even if the victim claims that there has been reconciliation."

The petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding by order to show cause dated October 12, 2006. The respondent successfully moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred ( see CPLR 217).

Contrary to the respondent's contention, the instant proceeding, which was commenced less than four months after the petitioner was formally denied permission to reside with his wife, is not barred by the statute of limitations ( see Matter of Chmielewsky v New York State Div. of Parole, 246 AD2d 778, 779). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in granting the respondent's motion to dismiss on this ground.

In the interest of judicial economy ( see Matter of Alamin v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 253 AD2d 948), we consider the merits of the petition and, based on our review of the record, conclude that it should be denied ( cf. United States v Rodriguez, 178 Fed Appx 152, 157-158 [2006], cert denied ___ US ___, 127 S Ct 1124; People v Jungers, 127 Cal App 4th 698, 703-704, 25 Cal Rptr 3d 873, 877-878). Thus, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the proceeding is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JAMES MOLLER v. DENNISON
(Jan 22, 2008)