Brady v. Coughlin

111 A.D.2d 539, 489 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51590
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 23, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 539 (Brady v. Coughlin) 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
Brady v. Coughlin, 111 A.D.2d 539, 489 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cholakis, J.), entered August 30,1984 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In an effort to challenge respondents’ denial of petitioner’s request for certain documents under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), petitioner, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, attempted to commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 by mailing a copy of the notice [540]*540of petition and petition to the Attorney-General’s office. As respondents were never served, Special Term granted their motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 7804, 403 [c]). Although petitioner’s method of service was indeed jurisdictionally defective, given that his claim is not clearly without merit, his solitary confinement at Green Haven, and his pro se and apparently indigent status, we chose to exercise our discretion {see, CPLR 5704 [a]), and read petitioner’s application as a request for an order permitting alternative service. Accordingly, we remit the matter to Special Term for issuance of an order to show cause authorizing commencement of this proceeding by service of said order and petition on respondents by such means and upon such conditions as Special Term deems suitable (see, Matter of Rolle v Henderson, 104 AD2d 686; Matter of Hanson v Coughlin, 103 AD2d 949; cf. Matter of King v Gregorie, 90 AD2d 922, lv dismissed 58 NY2d 822).

Judgment affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Related

Keogh v. New York State Department of Health
128 A.D.2d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 A.D.2d 539, 489 N.Y.S.2d 408, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brady-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1985.