Ciochenda v. Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciochenda v. Department of Correctional Services

68 A.D.3d 1363, 892 N.Y.2d 569

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1363 (Ciochenda v. 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

Ciochenda v. Department of Correctional Services, 68 A.D.3d 1363, 892 N.Y.2d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The Commissioner of Correctional Services issued a determination finding petitioner guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner, in turn, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court (Egan, J.) signed an order to show cause directing petitioner to serve it, the petition, exhibits and supporting affidavits upon respondent and the Attorney General on or before January 4, 2008. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, among others, that petitioner failed to comply with the service requirements of the order to show cause. Supreme Court (Teresi, J.) granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that an inmate’s failure to serve papers in accordance with the directives set forth in an order to show cause will result in dismissal of the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, unless the inmate can demonstrate that imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance (see Matter of Green v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2008], lv denied 10 [1364]*1364NY3d 716 [2008]; Matter of Thomas v Selsky, 34 AD3d 904, 904 [2006]). Here, petitioner admitted that he did not serve either respondent or the Attorney General with papers until January 8, 2008. Moreover, while he served a copy of the order to show cause, he neglected to include the other papers referenced therein. Petitioner’s own affidavit of service confirms that he did not comply with the directives set forth in the order to show cause. Although he contends that his inability to locate a notary at the facility to which he had been transferred contributed to his delay in serving the papers, he has not established that this was an obstacle preventing him from complying with the provisions of the order to show cause. Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, 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

The Commissioner of Correctional Services issued a determination finding petitioner guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner, in turn, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court (Egan, J.) signed an order to show cause directing petitioner to serve it, the petition, exhibits and supporting affidavits upon respondent and the Attorney General on or before January 4, 2008. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, among others, that petitioner failed to comply with the service requirements of the order to show cause. Supreme Court (Teresi, J.) granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that an inmate’s failure to serve papers in accordance with the directives set forth in an order to show cause will result in dismissal of the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, unless the inmate can demonstrate that imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance (see Matter of Green v Selsky, 50 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2008], lv denied 10 [1364]*1364NY3d 716 [2008]; Matter of Thomas v Selsky, 34 AD3d 904, 904 [2006]). Here, petitioner admitted that he did not serve either respondent or the Attorney General with papers until January 8, 2008. Moreover, while he served a copy of the order to show cause, he neglected to include the other papers referenced therein. Petitioner’s own affidavit of service confirms that he did not comply with the directives set forth in the order to show cause. Although he contends that his inability to locate a notary at the facility to which he had been transferred contributed to his delay in serving the papers, he has not established that this was an obstacle preventing him from complying with the provisions of the order to show cause. Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 1363, 892 N.Y.2d 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciochenda-v-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack