Reynoso v. Goord, 43 A.D.3d 1209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Reynoso v. Goord, 43 A.D.3d 1209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People ex rel. Velez v. Artus
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioner raises certain claims for the first time on appeal, they are not preserved for our review (see Matter of Woodward v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2007]; People ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sinanaj v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Initially, petitioner’s contention that the determination of guilt is not supported by the requisite substantial evidence is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as it is being raised for the first time on this appeal (see Matter of Woodward v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Goord
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Finally, inasmuch as petitioner argues for the first time on this appeal that the determination of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence, his claim is unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Woodward v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1209, 1209 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vidal v. Selsky
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The misbehavior report, together with the photograph of the items seized and petitioner’s own testimony in which he admitted to possessing an unauthorized number of stamps, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Woodward v Selsky, 43 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ignacio Reynoso
v.
Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 13, 2007.
43 A.D.3d 1209
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McCarthy, J.), entered January 30, 2006 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding by order to show cause to challenge a determination finding him guilty of engaging in a sexual act, lewd exposure and creating a disturbance. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. The record reveals that petitioner failed to comply with the service requirements of the order to show cause. Moreover, petitioner made no showing that obstacles presented by his imprisonment prevented him from adhering to the order’s mandates. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted respondents’ motion to dismiss (see Matter of Jones v Dennison, 30 AD3d 952, 953 [2006]; Matter of Barclay v State of New York Dept. of Correctional Servs., 22 AD3d 974, 974-975 [2005]).

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