Kelly v. Scully

152 A.D.2d 698, 544 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10503
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 24, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 698 (Kelly v. Scully) 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
Kelly v. Scully, 152 A.D.2d 698, 544 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Green Haven Temporary Release Committee which denied the petitioner’s application for temporary release from the Green Haven Correctional Facility, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Nastasi, J.), entered May 12, 1988, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner, an inmate at the Green Haven Correctional Facility, commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the denial of his application for a medical leave of absence to attend a cardiac rehabilitation program under the temporary release program (Correction Law § 851 et seg.J. The petitioner failed, however, to personally serve a notice of petition on the respondents and the New York State Attorney-General (see, CPLR 403 [c]; 307 [1]), and similarly failed to seek an order to show cause to authorize his use of service by mail in lieu of personal service (see, CPLR 308 [5]; 7804 [c]; Matter of Brown v Scully, 135 AD2d 713). The petitioner therefore failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over the respondents, and this fatal jurisdictional defect requires dismissal of this proceeding (see, Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592; Matter of Brown v Scully, supra, at 713; Matter of Dello v Selsky, 135 AD2d 994; Matter of Scott v Coughlin, 111 AD2d 480). In any event, this proceeding is barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations (see, Matter of Soto v New York State Bd. of Parole, 107 AD2d 693, affd 66 NY2d 817). Mangano, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Ivies v. Lasak
2017 NY Slip Op 9129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Whitnum v. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, P.C.
122 A.D.3d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
DRAKE, WALLACE v. FAHEY, JOSEPH E.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Drake v. Fahey
107 A.D.3d 1634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Eleonora v. New York State Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance
19 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Taylor v. Poole
285 A.D.2d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Bottom v. Murray
278 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Lazich v. Nicolai
254 A.D.2d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Berkowitz by Berkowitz v. New York City Bd. of Educ.
921 F. Supp. 963 (E.D. New York, 1996)
Mejia v. Scully
186 A.D.2d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 A.D.2d 698, 544 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-scully-nyappdiv-1989.