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: Herman JONES, Appellant, v. Robert DENNISON, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered December 9, 2005 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Following the denial of his request for parole release, petitioner attempted to commence the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. In the order to show cause signed by Supreme Court, petitioner was directed to serve the “[o]rder to [s]how [c]ause, the petition, exhibits and any supporting affidavits, by ordinary [f]irst [c]lass [m]ail, upon each named respondent and upon the Attorney General ․ on or before September 16, 2005.” Although he served the papers on the Attorney General, he neglected to serve them on respondent. As a result, respondent moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. The failure to comply with the service requirements of the order to show cause requires that the petition be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Matter of Davis v. Goord, 20 A.D.3d 785, 786, 798 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2005], lv. dismissed, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 861, 807 N.Y.S.2d 12, 840 N.E.2d 1025 [2005] ). Notably, petitioner conceded that he did not serve respondent and has not demonstrated that obstacles presented by his imprisonment prevented him from complying with the requirements of the order to show cause (see Matter of Green v. Duncan, 10 A.D.3d 743, 744, 781 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 701, 790 N.Y.S.2d 647, 824 N.E.2d 48 [2004]; Matter of Hickey v. Goord, 3 A.D.3d 802, 802, 770 N.Y.S.2d 904 [2004] ). Therefore, Supreme Court properly granted respondent's motion.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
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: June 29, 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)