Jones v. Dennison

30 A.D.3d 952, 818 N.Y.S.2d 321
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 952 (Jones v. Dennison) 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
Jones v. Dennison, 30 A.D.3d 952, 818 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered December 9, 2005 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

[953]*953Following the denial of his request for parole release, petitioner attempted to commence the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. In the order to show cause signed by Supreme Court, petitioner was directed to serve the “[o]rder to [s]how [c]ause, the petition, exhibits and any supporting affidavits, by ordinary [flirst [c]lass [m]ail, upon each named respondent and upon the Attorney General ... on or before September 16, 2005.” Although he served the papers on the Attorney General, he neglected to serve them on respondent. As a result, respondent moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. The failure to comply with the service requirements of the order to show cause requires that the petition be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Matter of Davis v Goord, 20 AD3d 785, 786 [2005], lv dismissed and denied 5 NY3d 861 [2005]). Notably, petitioner conceded that he did not serve respondent and has not demonstrated that obstacles presented by his imprisonment prevented him from complying with the requirements of the order to show cause (see Matter of Green v Duncan, 10 AD3d 743, 744 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 701 [2004]; Matter of Hickey v Goord, 3 AD3d 802, 802 [2004]). Therefore, Supreme Court properly granted respondent’s motion.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose 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

Cooper v. Goord
55 A.D.3d 1186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Chavis v. Goord
46 A.D.3d 1029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Reynoso v. Goord
43 A.D.3d 1209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Wise v. New York State Division of Parole
37 A.D.3d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Correnti v. Suffolk County District Attorney's Office
34 A.D.3d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 952, 818 N.Y.S.2d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-dennison-nyappdiv-2006.