Court Opinion

ID: 3173053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-28 16:07:47.160244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:50.259917
License: Public Domain

Lynch, J.
 

  Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 23, 2013 in Franklin County, which, among other things, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.
 

  In an attempt to challenge the denial of a grievance as well as various deprivation orders issued during 2010, 2011 and 2012 against special housing unit inmates in Upstate Correctional Facility, petitioner filed, under the same index number, a petition pursuant to CPLR article 78, a complaint seeking, among other things, preliminary injunctive relief against enforcement of the deprivation orders and a notice of motion seeking an order that the action be maintained as a class action pursuant to CPLR 901. Supreme Court, sua sponte, denied the request for injunctive relief and class status, and dismissed the petition and complaint without prejudice on the ground that the statements in the pleadings were not sufficiently particularized. This appeal ensued.
 

  We affirm. CPLR 3013 provides that “[s]tatements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action.” Furthermore, a “pleading shall consist of plain and concise statements” (CPLR 3014). Upon our review of the petition, we agree with Supreme Court that the petition does not meet this standard as it contains overly broad and rambling allegations challenging numerous and, at
   
   *1250
   
  times, unspecified deprivation orders. Accordingly, the petition and complaint were properly dismissed (see
  
   Matter of Garraway v Fischer,
  
  106 AD3d 1301, 1301 [2013],
  
   lv denied
  
  21 NY3d 864 [2013];
  
   Matter of Pettus v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,
  
  77 AD3d 996, 996 [2010];
  
   Matter of Escalera v State of New York,
  
  67 AD3d 1137, 1137-1138 [2009]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
 

  McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.