Amaro v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amaro v. Travis

264 A.D.2d 882, 695 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9115

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 882 (Amaro v. Travis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amaro v. Travis, 264 A.D.2d 882, 695 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered September 1, 1998 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner failed to serve either respondent or the Attorney General with a copy of the petition as directed by the order to show cause, Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. (see, e.g., Matter of McRae v New York State Div. of Parole, 221 AD2d 827). The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., [883]*883JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered September 1, 1998 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as the record establishes that petitioner failed to serve either respondent or the Attorney General with a copy of the petition as directed by the order to show cause, Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. (see, e.g., Matter of McRae v New York State Div. of Parole, 221 AD2d 827). The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., [883]*883JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 882, 695 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amaro-v-travis-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack