Matter of Hutchinson v Fischer

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Hutchinson v Fischer 2013 NY Slip Op 32634(U) September 16, 2013 Supreme Court, Albany County Docket Number: 2359-13 Judge: Jr., George B. Ceresia Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY In The Matter of EDDIE HUTCHINSON, Petiti'j~er, -against- BRIAN FISCHER, CONilvfISSIONER, Resuo.cdent, J. ~ ¢ ¢ ' ¢ For A Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Supreme Court Albany County Al1id~ 78 Term Hon. George B . Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Cot!(f Justice Presiding RJI # 01 -13-ST4724 Index No. 2359-13 Appearances: Eddie Hutchinson Inmate No. 89-T-2984 Petitioner, Pro Se Marcy Correctional Facility 9000 Old River Road P.O. Box 3600 Marcy~ New York 134. 3 0 Eric T. Schneiderma~ Attorney General State of New York Attorney For Respond. nt e The Capitol Albcu;iy~ New York 12224 - (Laura A. Sprague, Assistant Attorney General of Counsel) DECISION/ORDER/JUDG:\-1[~NT George B. Ceresia, Jr., Justice The petitioner, an hunate at Marcy Con:ectional Fc!·~i:it)', has corn.rnenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding to .review a disciplinary d~tc:mination. The respond.em has [* 2] made a m~tion pursuant. to CPLR ·3211 (a) (?) to dism;r:s ~he. petition on grounds that petitioner (ailed to timely serve the order to ·show cau&e and._petition. The order to show cause, dated May 20, 2013, required the petitioner to serve.i.lte respondents and the Attorney General with a copy of the order to show cause and petitkin on.or before.June: 14, ~013. The respondent has. submitted the affidavit sworn to July 10, 2013 of Patricia E. ,. . ' ' DaUm.ann-W. aver, employed by the New York State pepartment of Corr. ctions and e e . .. - ' Community Supe~ision ("POCCS") in the.Couns. l '-s·Officc as an Adtl}inistrative Assistant. e ·Ms. Dallmann-Wcaver indicates that whenever papers are s~r;~d upon Commissioner Brian Fischer's Office or DOCCS the papers a.re forwarded to dcs:ignated staff after review by her . - supervisor, Deputy Counsel Nancy J. HCY\\fOOd. It is the re'sponsibility ofappropriate staff to fo~'ard ·these cfocuments to the Office of the Attor:rwy General, along with a letter requesting representation on behalf ofthe respondents. -Ms. Dallmann-'We:aver indicates that she made-a search of the-files in the Counsel's Office to determine whether any leg~l papers relating to the above-captioned action. had been. served up~nrthe respondents. She indicates that the respondent's office received an unsigned order to ~.h.t.T\:\} cause, a verified petition and supporting papers in connection with this proceeding on .June 10, 2013. However as of July . 10, 2013 no signed order to ~how cause had been received. Respondents have also submitted the affidavit sworn.to July 1 l ~ 2013 ofEvan Schanz, employed in the Office of the New York State Attorney General in the Albany Litigation Bureau D.':I aClerk. His responsibilities incln~e making entd~s in the database maintained in 2 [* 3] the office of the Attorney General and searching the database. He searched the computerized database of the Attorney General for information concerning the above-captioned action. He found that on June 5, 2013 the Attorney General was served.with a copy of an unsigned order to show cause and petition. However as of July 11, 2013 the Office of the Attorney General had not received a signed order to show cause. in the instant proceeding. Failure of an inma~e to satisfy the service requirements set forth in an-order to show cause requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction absent a showing that imprisonment prevented compliance (see Matter of Gibson v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1190 [3d Dept., 2011]; Matter of Defilippo v Fischer, 85 AD3d 1421, 1421 [3d Dept., 2011]; Matter of Pettus v New York State Dept. of Corr. Serv., 76 AD3d 1152 [3rd Dept., 2010]; M~tter ofCiochenda · v Department of Correctional Services, 68 AD3d 1363 [3rd Dept., 2009]; People ex rel. Holman v Cunningham,73 AD3d 1298, 1299 [3rd Dept., 2010]). Petitioner's affidavit of service recites: "Subject to perjury indentures in civil procedure law rules section 2106, certifications pursuant title 22 NYCRR section 130.1. l A(B) petitioner attested sub-declaration veracious: on 4t11 day of June ' 13 petitioner ceded to respondent commissioner Brian Fischer, state attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman state capitol, Albany, NY 12224 an article 78 petition, accompanying documents, show cause injunction and eq1~ivalent to Albany County Supreme Court including judicial intervention request 1101 (a) (f) related injunction via U.S. mail service pertinent USCA section I 0 I title 39 by depositing envelope containing documents in mail receptacle." Petitioner's opposing affidavit recites: 3 [* 4] "Asst. Attorney General Motion soliciting court to dismiss suppliant article 78 petition pursuant Article 32 section 11 subd. A (8) court deficient jurisdiction of defendant; purporting inadequate service process entailing show cause injunction require repudiation. "( 1) Acknowledging petition, show cause injunction receipt July 5th '13 instructing documents _onsignment to . respondent, c Attorney General Office Department of Law, Capital Albany, NY.12224 via first class mail on or prior °June 14th '13~ Asst. Attorney Laura Sprague confirm injunction consummation refuting jurisdictional defect claim; suppliant reproducing documents pursuant to section 4539 (A) CPLR transcriptionally unable to manufacture photographic copi.es doesn't vitiate attestable injunction service requirement semanticizing a copy be served as authorized in CPLR Article 2101 (E) opposed to original. Asst. Attorney General admit authenticy procuring endorsed duplicate from court clerk; in retrospect demeritizing defiance. "(2) H:ypothetically, qualifying as a document defect not service failure to notify in two days subsequ_nt receipt consigning party · e waiver correction opportunity (CPLR ·2101 F) the [word unintelligible] supra state motion merit denial. Unimplementing perfunctory corrective process at presumption of defect discovered nine days prior service date July 14th '13." The.Court finds that the affidavit of service is insufficient to establish that the signed . ' order to show cause, petition, and all supporting papers were served in full compliance with the service requirements set forth in the order to show cause. . Petitioner's affidavit in opposition fails to either demonstrate that proper service wa~ made or present facts to support an argument that imprisonment prevented him from doing so. An inmate's inability to make photocopies is not, ordinarily, a proper excuse (see MatteLofHickevv Gcord, 3 AD3d 802, 802-803 [3d Dept., 2004]; Matter of Var.gas v Unger, 29 AJ?3d 1258, 1258 [3rd Dept., 2006]; 4 [* 5] Matter of Thomas v Selsk:y, 34 AD3d 904, 904-905[3rd Dept., 2006]). In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the order to show cause, the petition and supporting papers were not served upon respondent as required in the order to show cause. The Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed by reason ofthe failure of petitioner. to comply with the service requirements contained iri the order to show cause (see Matter of Gibson v Fischer, supra; Matter of DeFilippo v Fischer, supra; Matter of Pettus v New York . . State Dept. of Corr. Serv., supra; Matter of Ciochenda v Department of Correctional Services, supra; People ex rel. Holman v Cunningham, supra). Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that respondent's motion to dismiss be and hereby is granted; and it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the petition be and hereby is dismissed. This shall constitute the decision, order and judgment of the Court. The original decision/order/judgment is returned to the attorney for the·respondents. All other papers are being delivered by the Court to the County Clerk for filing. The signing of this decision/order/judgment and delivery of this decision/order/judgment does not constitute entry or filing under CPLR Rule 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule respecting filing, entry and notice of entry. ENTER Dated: September . If Troy, New York , 2013 yt --L_ cS ~..-.....-. 1 T~brge B. Ceresia, Jr. Supreme Court Justice 5 [* 6] Papers Considered: L 2. 3. Order To Show Cause dated May 20, 2013, Petition, Supporting Papers and Exhibits and Affidavit of Service Notice of Motion dated July 16, 2013, Supporting Papers and Exhibits Petitioner's Response To Dismissal Motion Pursuant to Section 3211 (a) (8) CPLR 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.