Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Hickey v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 29, 2004

3 A.D.3d 802; 770 N.Y.S.2d 904; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 878

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Hall v. Benziger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Smith v. Annucci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Jones v. Dennison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Thomas v. Selsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Barclay v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Adams v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Vera v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Benza, J.), entered September 9, 2002 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules by failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures and refusing a direct order. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent given petitioner’s admission that he failed to serve respondent with the petition and supporting papers as directed in the order to show cause. We affirm. “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 [or her] control which prevented compliance” (Matter of Gittens v Selsky, 193 AD2d 986, 987 [1993] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Townes v Selsky, 309 AD2d 1106 [2003]). No such showing has been *803made by petitioner, notwithstanding his assertion that he had insufficient funds for photocopying (see Matter of McCants v Travis, 282 AD2d 851 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 605 [2001]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.