Reynoso v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reynoso v. Goord

304 A.D.2d 995, 756 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 995 (Reynoso v. Goord) 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

Reynoso v. Goord, 304 A.D.2d 995, 756 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered June 7, 2002 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following petitioner’s failure to serve the order to show cause, petition and supporting papers on the Attorney General or respondents in accordance with the order to show cause, respondents moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued. We affirm. Although procedural requirements may be relaxed where imprisonment presents an obstacle to service that is beyond the inmate’s control (see Matter of McGuire v Goord, 294 AD2d 719 [2002]; Matter of Gittens v Selsky, 193 AD2d 986 [1993]), petitioner has failed to make such a showing here notwithstanding his proffered explanations regarding his unsubstantiated psychiatric disorder or his “limited knowledge of the English language.”

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 (Bradley, J.), entered June 7, 2002 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following petitioner’s failure to serve the order to show cause, petition and supporting papers on the Attorney General or respondents in accordance with the order to show cause, respondents moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued. We affirm. Although procedural requirements may be relaxed where imprisonment presents an obstacle to service that is beyond the inmate’s control (see Matter of McGuire v Goord, 294 AD2d 719 [2002]; Matter of Gittens v Selsky, 193 AD2d 986 [1993]), petitioner has failed to make such a showing here notwithstanding his proffered explanations regarding his unsubstantiated psychiatric disorder or his “limited knowledge of the English language.”

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 995, 756 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynoso-v-goord-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack