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: Michael BURNSIDE, Appellant, v. Peter J. LACY, as Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Malone Jr., J.), entered April 9, 1999 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, a prison inmate, challenges Supreme Court's dismissal of his petition for lack of personal jurisdiction over respondents. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding because petitioner failed to comply with an order to show cause which directed that, inter alia, petitioner serve, by mail, each named respondent and the Attorney-General before November 20, 1998. “Failure of an inmate to satisfy the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction absent a showing that imprisonment presented obstacles beyond his control which prevented compliance * * * ” (Matter of Gittens v. Selsky, 193 A.D.2d 986, 987, 598 N.Y.S.2d 110; see, Matter of Wilder v. New York State Div. of Parole, 249 A.D.2d 606, 606-607, 670 N.Y.S.2d 622). Although petitioner offered a sworn affidavit of service, it was dated before the issuance of the order to show cause. Furthermore, the Attorney-General, by letter dated December 23, 1998, indicated that he has no record of receipt of either the petition or the original order to show cause. Accordingly, as petitioner failed to comply with the order to show cause, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Williams v. Lacy, 253 A.D.2d 915, 678 N.Y.S.2d 306).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: February 03, 2000
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)