Opinion
10/295.
June 1, 2010.
Douglas Ames, 90-A-4509, Pro Se Petitioner, Coxsackie Correctional Facility, West Coxsackie, New York.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq., Attorney General of the State of New York, Attorney for the Respondent, Albany, New York.
DECISION and ORDER
Petitioner commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding by Order to Show Cause (hereinafter "OSC") challenging his Tier II disciplinary hearing determination. Prior to answering, Respondent moves to dismiss the petition alleging that Petitioner failed to comply with the OSC's service directives and failed to name a necessary party. Because Respondent failed to demonstrate his entitlement to dismissal on either ground, his motion is denied.
Although Respondent's notice of motion titles this portion of his motion as one for "fail[ure] to state a cause of action", his papers argue for dismissal due to Petitioner's "failure to name a necessary party." As such, Respondent's motion will be analyzed by its substantive content, not as identified.
"It is well settled that an inmate's failure to serve papers in accordance with the directives set forth in an order to show cause will result in dismissal of the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, unless the inmate can demonstrate that imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance." (Ciochenda v. Department of Correctional Services, 68 AD3d 1363 [3d Dept. 2009]); Ventura v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 68 AD3d 1406 [3d Dept. 2009]). Moreover, an inmate's Article 78 petition will not be dismissed where a "respondent denies receipt of the [inmate's] papers and the imprisoned petitioner fails to either substantiate his affidavit of service or demonstrate that obstacles related to his imprisonment prevented him from complying with the terms of the order to show cause." (Lopez v. Goord, 41 AD3d 992, 993 [3d Dept. 2007]; see also Matter of Elliott v. Butler, 8 NYS3d 972 [2007]). Instead, the Court should "conduct a traverse hearing ( see Matter of Elliott v Butler, supra), solicit an admission of service from respondent (see CPLR 306[e]) or extend the time for service to afford petitioner an opportunity to re-serve the papers (see CPLR 306-b)." (Id.)
On this record it is undisputed that the Petitioner did not comply with the OSC's service directives. Both the Attorney General's Office and Respondent's employer submit affidavits demonstrating that neither had received the OSC and Petition on or before the OSC's service date. Moreover, Petitioner's affidavit of service confirms that he did not serve his OSC and petition until April 13, 2010, one day after the OSC required service to be complete. While Respondent demonstrated Petitioner's non-compliance with the OSC, Respondent did not allege that he suffered any prejudice due to such non-compliance.
Additionally, in opposition, Petitioner demonstrated that "imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance" with the OSC. Petitioner alleges that he did not receive the OSC until April 12, 2010, the day he was required to serve it. Due to his late receipt of the OSC and the mere one day delay, Petitioner demonstrated that he was unable to serve the OSC in accord with its provisions due to his imprisonment.
Accordingly, because Respondent was not prejudiced and Petitioner's one day delay was due to obstacles related to his imprisonment, Petitioner's time for service is hereby extended in the "interest of justice" pursuant to CPLR § 306-b. (Lopez, supra). As such, the service date in the OSC is hereby amended, nunc pro tunc, to June 25, 2010.
Similarly unavailing is Respondent's motion to dismiss for Petitioner's failure to name a necessary party. Petitioner commenced this proceeding against the individual, in his official capacity, who rendered the Tier II disciplinary hearing disposition at issue. As correctly noted by Respondent, Petitioner failed to name the individual who reviewed such disciplinary hearing determination on administrative appeal. ( 7 NYCRR § 253.7). Prior to Respondent's determination being upheld on administrative review, it was not subject to a CPLR Art. 78 challenge because it was "not final . . . [and it could] be adequately reviewed by appeal to a[n] . . . officer." (CPLR §§ 7801 [a] and 7802[a]). Thus, the administrative appeal officer who made the "final" determination, which is subject to a CPLR Art. 78 challenge, is a necessary party to this proceeding and "ought to be [a] part[y]." (CPLR 1001 [a]).
Although Respondent failed to name this necessary party, dismissal is neither required nor permissible. "When a necessary party is subject to the jurisdiction of the court — as [is the case with the administrative appeal officer] — the statute directs that the court order him summoned." (Windy Ridge Farm v. Assessor of Town of Shandaken, 11 NY3d 725, CPLR § 1001 [b]). As such, this court is "required to join the necessary part[y] and remit for further proceedings." (Id., Matter of Romeo v New York State Dept. of Educ., 41 AD3d 1102 [3d Dept. 2007]).
Accordingly, Respondent's motion is denied in its entirety. On or before June 25, 2010, Petitioner shall file and serve an amended petition, adding as a party respondent the Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, in his official capacity. Service shall be by first class mail, made upon the New York State Attorney General's Office and both Respondents. Respondents shall have until July 23, 2010 to file and serve their answer to the amended petition, with Petitioner filing and serving his reply, if any, on or before August 2, 2010.
This Decision and Order is being returned to the Respondent. All other original papers submitted on this motion are being retained by the Court for further proceedings herein. The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR § 2220. Petitioner is not relieved from the applicable provision of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of entry.
So Ordered.
PAPERS CONSIDERED:
1. Order to Show Cause, dated March 17, 2010, Petition, dated February 23, 2010, Affidavit of Douglas Ames, dated February 23, 2010, with attached Exhibits A-D;
2. Affidavit of Douglas Ames, dated April 13, 2010.
3. Notice of Motion, dated April 27, 2010, Affirmation of Cathy Sheehan, dated April 27, 2010, with attached Exhibits A-C.
3. Affidavit of Douglas Ames, dated May 4, 2010, with attached Exhibits A-B.