Arosena v. Carpenter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arosena v. Carpenter

19 A.D.3d 838, 796 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6746

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

DecidedJune 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 838 (Arosena v. Carpenter) 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

Arosena v. Carpenter, 19 A.D.3d 838, 796 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered June 24, 2004 in Washington County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, prompting this appeal. Because petitioner failed to serve respondents and the Attorney General in accordance with the relaxed service directives set forth in the amended order to show cause, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition (see Matter of Spirles v Goord, 273 AD2d 568, 568-569 [2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 928 [2001]; Matter of Houston v Goord, 270 AD2d 543, 544 [2000]; Matter of Vazquez v Travis, 262 AD2d 690, 690-691 [1999], appeal dismissed 94 NY2d 796 [1999]). Accordingly, we are precluded from addressing the merits of the petition.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., 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 (Berke, J.), entered June 24, 2004 in Washington County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, prompting this appeal. Because petitioner failed to serve respondents and the Attorney General in accordance with the relaxed service directives set forth in the amended order to show cause, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition (see Matter of Spirles v Goord, 273 AD2d 568, 568-569 [2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 928 [2001]; Matter of Houston v Goord, 270 AD2d 543, 544 [2000]; Matter of Vazquez v Travis, 262 AD2d 690, 690-691 [1999], appeal dismissed 94 NY2d 796 [1999]). Accordingly, we are precluded from addressing the merits of the petition.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 838, 796 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arosena-v-carpenter-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack