Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Paul RUINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sarah HINES, Assistant District Attorney of New York County, etc., Respondent, Jonathan Davis, Record Access Officer, etc., Respondent-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Feinman, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2007, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel disclosure of documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding by order to show cause and petition. The order to show cause directed, among other things, that personal service be made by ordinary first class mail upon respondent Police Department records access officer and the Corporation Counsel. However, petitioner did not effect service as directed in that he failed to serve the order and petition on the Corporation Counsel and sent incomplete papers to the Police Department. The mode of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional and must be literally followed (see CPLR 304, 403 [d]; European Am. Bank v. Legum, 248 A.D.2d 206, 669 N.Y.S.2d 595 [1998] ). Petitioner's pro se status is not an excuse for noncompliance (see Goldmark v. Keystone & Grading Corp., 226 A.D.2d 143, 640 N.Y.S.2d 89 [1996] ), and his incarceration did not prevent him from complying with the mandated service requirements (see Matter of Thomas v. Selsky, 34 A.D.3d 904, 823 N.Y.S.2d 568 [2006] ). Finally, we conclude that petitioner has abandoned his appeal with respect to respondent Hines.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 18, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)