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: Simon VARGAS, Appellant, v. David UNGER, as Superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered November 3, 2005 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 by order to show cause to challenge a determination of the Time Allowance Committee. Supreme Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner failed to serve each respondent as directed in the executed order to show cause. It is well settled that an inmate's failure to comply with the service directives set forth in an order to show cause requires dismissal of the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Matter of McCants v. Travis, 282 A.D.2d 851, 722 N.Y.S.2d 920 [2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 605, 737 N.Y.S.2d 53, 762 N.E.2d 931 [2001]; Matter of Gittens v. Selsky, 193 A.D.2d 986, 987, 598 N.Y.S.2d 110 [1993] ). Although procedural requirements may be relaxed upon a showing that imprisonment presented an obstacle to service beyond the inmate's control, we are unpersuaded that lack of access to a fully operable copier machine posed such an obstacle (see Matter of Townes v. Selsky, 309 A.D.2d 1106, 766 N.Y.S.2d 603 [2003]; Matter of Gittens v. Selsky, supra at 987, 598 N.Y.S.2d 110), especially given that petitioner was able to serve other named respondents to the proceeding. In view of the foregoing, we are precluded from addressing the merits of the petition.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 25, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)