People ex rel. Holman v. Cunningham

73 A.D.3d 1298, 901 N.Y.S.2d 872
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 13, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1298 (People ex rel. Holman v. Cunningham) 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
People ex rel. Holman v. Cunningham, 73 A.D.3d 1298, 901 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered January 29, 2009 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner brought this application pursuant to CPLR article 70 seeking a writ of habeas corpus following the denial of his request for parole release. Supreme Court signed an order to show cause directing the manner in which service of the papers was to be made upon respondents and the Attorney General. [1299]*1299Respondents successfully moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. An inmate’s failure to serve papers in accordance with the directives set forth by the court in an order to show cause is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the petition absent a demonstration by the inmate that obstacles presented by his or her imprisonment precluded compliance (see People ex rel. Wager v Greene, 37 AD3d 949 [2007]; People ex rel. Brown v Greene, 10 AD3d 746 [2004]; People ex rel. Watson v Walsh, 7 AD3d 850 [2004]). Petitioner did not serve the papers in accordance with the provisions of the order to show cause and has not provided an adequate excuse for his failure to do so (see People ex rel. Bernard v Cunningham, 73 AD3d 1306 [2010] [decided herewith]).

Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., 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

People ex rel. Curran v. Keyser
2021 NY Slip Op 04523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People ex rel. Figueroa v. Griffin
134 A.D.3d 1318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Czajka v. Dellehunt
125 A.D.3d 1177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Rivera v. Cunningham
78 A.D.3d 1434 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.3d 1298, 901 N.Y.S.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-holman-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-2010.