Lomonaco v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lomonaco v. Travis

264 A.D.2d 872, 695 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9017

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

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 872 (Lomonaco v. Travis) 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

Lomonaco v. Travis, 264 A.D.2d 872, 695 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered September 23, 1998 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[873]*873Inasmuch as petitioner, a prison inmate, failed to serve a signed order to show cause and petition upon respondent and the Attorney General, and there being no evidence that his imprisonment created an obstacle preventing his compliance with the service directives contained in the order to show cause (see, Matter of Gittens v Selsky, 193 AD2d 986, 987), Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; see also, Matter of Arroyo v Coombe, 239 AD2d 634, 635, lv denied 90 NY2d 812; Matter of Marsalona v Coombe, 234 AD2d 841). The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered September 23, 1998 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[873]*873Inasmuch as petitioner, a prison inmate, failed to serve a signed order to show cause and petition upon respondent and the Attorney General, and there being no evidence that his imprisonment created an obstacle preventing his compliance with the service directives contained in the order to show cause (see, Matter of Gittens v Selsky, 193 AD2d 986, 987), Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; see also, Matter of Arroyo v Coombe, 239 AD2d 634, 635, lv denied 90 NY2d 812; Matter of Marsalona v Coombe, 234 AD2d 841). The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 872, 695 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lomonaco-v-travis-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack