Burke v. Bezio

71 A.D.3d 1317, 895 N.Y.S.2d 883
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1317 (Burke v. Bezio) 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
Burke v. Bezio, 71 A.D.3d 1317, 895 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O’Connor, J.), entered June 8, 2009 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding by order to show cause challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The order to show cause provided that the order, petition,. exhibits and supporting affidavits were to be served by ordinary first-class mail upon re[1318]*1318spondent and the Attorney General on or before December 26, 2008. Petitioner served the papers upon the Attorney General, but not upon respondent. Respondent, in turn, moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Petitioner’s undisputed failure to comply with the service directives of the order to show cause required that the proceeding be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as he has not demonstrated that his imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance (see Matter of Barclay v State of New York Dept. of Correctional Servs., 22 AD3d 974, 974-975 [2005]; Matter of Robinson v Goord, 21 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2005]). Although petitioner maintains that CPLR 306-b affords him an extension of time to serve respondent, it is inapplicable where, as here, petitioner brought on the CPLR article 78 proceeding by order to show cause and failed to comply with its service requirements (see Matter of Frederick v Goord, 20 AD3d 652 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted respondent’s motion and dismissed the petition.

Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, 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

Matter of Adams v. Annucci
2019 NY Slip Op 6662 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Watkins v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
2018 NY Slip Op 1975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
State v. Robert C.
113 A.D.3d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ross v. New York State Board of Parole
78 A.D.3d 1405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Best Batchateu v. Peters
77 A.D.3d 1366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.3d 1317, 895 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-bezio-nyappdiv-2010.