Barclay v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services

22 A.D.3d 974, 802 N.Y.S.2d 389
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 974 (Barclay v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services) 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
Barclay v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services, 22 A.D.3d 974, 802 N.Y.S.2d 389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J), entered June 16, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding by order to show cause, signed by Supreme Court on January 12, 2004, to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. The order to show cause required that petitioner serve each respondent and the Attorney General with the order to show cause, petition, exhibits and supporting affidavits by ordinary first class mail on or before February 20, 2004. Petitioner, however, failed to serve the papers upon certain employees of Attica Correctional Facility named as respondents in the proceeding or upon the Attorney General. Although he did serve the necessary papers upon respondent Robert Murphy, the exhibits were not included. Thereafter, respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground, among others, of lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the service requirements set forth in the order to show cause requires that the proceeding be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as he has not demonstrated that his imprisonment presented obstacles preventing him from complying with the requirements of the order to show cause (see Matter of Green v Duncan, 10 AD3d [975]*975743, 744 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 701 [2004]; Matter of Hickey v Goord, 3 AD3d 802, 802 [2004]). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, dismissal of the petition was appropriate.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, 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

Related

People ex rel. Strong v. Warden Griffin
2018 NY Slip Op 4747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Peterkin v. Houses
87 A.D.3d 649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Burke v. Bezio
71 A.D.3d 1317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Reynoso v. Goord
43 A.D.3d 1209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Romero v. Department of Correctional Services
30 A.D.3d 797 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.3d 974, 802 N.Y.S.2d 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclay-v-state-of-new-york-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2005.