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: Anthony F. WISE, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Egan Jr., J.), entered June 6, 2006 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
Petitioner seeks to challenge a December 2004 decision of the Board of Parole denying his request for parole release. In connection therewith, Supreme Court signed an order to show cause in December 2005 directing petitioner to serve the order to show cause, petition, exhibits and supporting affidavits by ordinary mail upon respondent and the Attorney General by December 30, 2005. At petitioner's request, Supreme Court signed an amended order to show cause extending the service date to March 3, 2006. However, when petitioner failed to serve either respondent or the Attorney General with the petition in accordance with the provisions of the amended order to show cause, respondent moved to dismiss the petition. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. “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” (Matter of Vargas v. Unger, 29 A.D.3d 1258, 816 N.Y.S.2d 572 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 709, 822 N.Y.S.2d 483, 855 N.E.2d 799 [2006] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Harrison v. Division of Parole Chairman, 29 A.D.3d 1242, 1242, 817 N.Y.S.2d 161 [2006] ). Here, petitioner's affidavit of service omits any mention of service of the petition on either respondent or the Attorney General. Nor has he attempted to demonstrate that obstacles presented by his imprisonment prevented him from complying with the service requirements (see Matter of Jones v. Dennison, 30 A.D.3d 952, 953, 818 N.Y.S.2d 321 [2006]; Matter of Loper v. Selsky, 29 A.D.3d 1183, 1184, 817 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2006] ).
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: February 15, 2007
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)