Townes v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Townes v. Selsky

309 A.D.2d 1106, 766 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11202

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1106 (Townes 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

Townes v. Selsky, 309 A.D.2d 1106, 766 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered February 5, 2003 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction because petitioner failed to serve each respondent with the signed order to show cause and petition as directed in the order to show cause. Absent a showing that imprisonment presented an obstacle to service beyond an inmate’s control, failure to satisfy the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause requires dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Matter of Bennett v Selsky, 306 AD2d 597 [2003]; Matter of Martinez v Goord, 304 AD2d 1062 [2003]). Petitioner did not argue before Supreme Court that he was presented with any barriers preventing him from properly commencing this proceeding, and his belated assertions on appeal that insufficient access to a typewriter, law books and a copy machine prevented him from making proper service are unpersuasive (see Matter of Martinez v Coombe, 234 AD2d 825, 826 [1996]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, 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 (Spargo, J.), entered February 5, 2003 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction because petitioner failed to serve each respondent with the signed order to show cause and petition as directed in the order to show cause. Absent a showing that imprisonment presented an obstacle to service beyond an inmate’s control, failure to satisfy the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause requires dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Matter of Bennett v Selsky, 306 AD2d 597 [2003]; Matter of Martinez v Goord, 304 AD2d 1062 [2003]). Petitioner did not argue before Supreme Court that he was presented with any barriers preventing him from properly commencing this proceeding, and his belated assertions on appeal that insufficient access to a typewriter, law books and a copy machine prevented him from making proper service are unpersuasive (see Matter of Martinez v Coombe, 234 AD2d 825, 826 [1996]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1106, 766 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townes-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack