Matter of Brown v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Brown v. Fischer

145 A.D.3d 1212, 44 N.Y.S.3d 219

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2016

Docket521359

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 145 A.D.3d 1212 (Matter of Brown v. Fischer) 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

Matter of Brown v. Fischer, 145 A.D.3d 1212, 44 N.Y.S.3d 219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McCarthy, J.), entered May 18, 2015 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, sought to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. The amended order to show cause that was signed by Supreme Court directed petitioner to serve a copy of the signed order, *1213 petition, exhibits and supporting affidavits upon each respondent and the Attorney General by first class mail on or before March 6, 2015. Petitioner failed to serve the required documents upon all respondents and the Attorney General by the return date. As a result, respondents moved to dismiss the petition for, among other things, lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that an inmate’s failure to comply with the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause mandates dismissal of the petition absent a demonstration by the inmate that imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance (see Matter of Barnes v Venettozzi, 141 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2016]; Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, 117 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2014]). Here, respondents presented affidavits substantiating that service was not effectuated in accordance with the requirements of the amended order to show cause. Petitioner has not submitted contrary proof or even addressed the lack of proper service in his brief. Therefore, Supreme Court properly granted respondents’ motion and dismissed the petition (see Matter of Davis v Brack, 136 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2016]; Matter of Anderson v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2013]).

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Rose, Devine and Clark, 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 (McCarthy, J.), entered May 18, 2015 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, sought to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. The amended order to show cause that was signed by Supreme Court directed petitioner to serve a copy of the signed order, *1213 petition, exhibits and supporting affidavits upon each respondent and the Attorney General by first class mail on or before March 6, 2015. Petitioner failed to serve the required documents upon all respondents and the Attorney General by the return date. As a result, respondents moved to dismiss the petition for, among other things, lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that an inmate’s failure to comply with the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause mandates dismissal of the petition absent a demonstration by the inmate that imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance (see Matter of Barnes v Venettozzi, 141 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2016]; Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, 117 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2014]). Here, respondents presented affidavits substantiating that service was not effectuated in accordance with the requirements of the amended order to show cause. Petitioner has not submitted contrary proof or even addressed the lack of proper service in his brief. Therefore, Supreme Court properly granted respondents’ motion and dismissed the petition (see Matter of Davis v Brack, 136 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2016]; Matter of Anderson v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2013]).

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.3d 1212, 44 N.Y.S.3d 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-brown-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack