Seifert v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seifert v. Selsky

260 A.D.2d 823, 687 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034

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

DecidedApril 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 823 (Seifert v. Selsky) 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

Seifert v. Selsky, 260 A.D.2d 823, 687 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered June 10, 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.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Because petitioner failed to serve respondent and the Attorney General in accordance with the directive set forth in the order to show cause, the petition was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Russo v Goord, 251 AD2d 835). Accordingly, we are precluded from addressing the merits of the petition.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain 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 (Keegan, J.), entered June 10, 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.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Because petitioner failed to serve respondent and the Attorney General in accordance with the directive set forth in the order to show cause, the petition was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Russo v Goord, 251 AD2d 835). Accordingly, we are precluded from addressing the merits of the petition.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 823, 687 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seifert-v-selsky-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack