Matter of Ruine v Hines

Matter of Ruine v Hines 2008 NY Slip Op 09928 [57 AD3d 369] December 18, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

In the Matter of Paul Ruine, Appellant,
v
Sarah Hines, as Assistant District Attorney of New York County, Respondent, and Jonathan Davis, as Records Access Officer, Respondent.

—[*1] Paul Ruine, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for Jonathan Davis, respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Feinman, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2007, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel disclosure of documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding by order to show cause and petition. The order to show cause directed, among other things, that personal service be made by ordinary first class mail upon respondent Police Department records access officer and the Corporation Counsel. However, petitioner did not effect service as directed in that he failed to serve the order and petition on the Corporation Counsel and sent incomplete papers to the Police Department. The mode of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional and must be literally followed (see CPLR 304, 403 [d]; European Am. Bank v Legum, 248 AD2d 206 [1998]). Petitioner's pro se status is not an excuse for noncompliance (see Goldmark v Keystone & Grading Corp., 226 AD2d 143 [1996]), and his incarceration did not prevent him from complying with the mandated service requirements (see Matter of Thomas v Selsky, 34 AD3d 904 [2006]). [*2]Finally, we conclude that petitioner has abandoned his appeal with respect to respondent Hines. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.