Elufe v. Parrott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elufe v. Parrott

6 A.D.3d 856, 773 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960

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

DecidedApril 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 856 (Elufe v. Parrott) 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

Elufe v. Parrott, 6 A.D.3d 856, 773 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[857]*857Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered July 10, 2003 in Clinton County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three determinations finding him guilty of multiple disciplinary rule violations. Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction due to petitioner’s failure to serve respondent or the Attorney General with an executed order to show cause as directed.

We affirm. Absent a showing that prison presented an obstacle to service beyond an inmate’s control, failure to comply with the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause requires dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Matter of Townes v Selsky, 309 AD2d 1106 [2003]; Matter of Bennett v Selsky, 306 AD2d 597 [2003]). Inasmuch as petitioner made no such showing here, the petition was properly dismissed.

Crew III, J.P, Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin 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

[857]*857Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered July 10, 2003 in Clinton County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three determinations finding him guilty of multiple disciplinary rule violations. Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction due to petitioner’s failure to serve respondent or the Attorney General with an executed order to show cause as directed.

We affirm. Absent a showing that prison presented an obstacle to service beyond an inmate’s control, failure to comply with the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause requires dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Matter of Townes v Selsky, 309 AD2d 1106 [2003]; Matter of Bennett v Selsky, 306 AD2d 597 [2003]). Inasmuch as petitioner made no such showing here, the petition was properly dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 856, 773 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elufe-v-parrott-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack