It is well settled that the "[f]ailure 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 [the inmate's] control which prevented compliance" (Matter of Gittens v. Selsky, 193 A.D.2d 986, 987). Even where, as here, the rules of service are relaxed to accommodate an inmate's incarceration, "no jurisdiction is acquired if the service requirements capable of being satisfied have not been met" (Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921, 921). In this case, petitioner alleges that he fully complied with Supreme Court's order to show cause.
Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent based upon petitioner's failure to serve respondent and file proof of such service within the time requirements set forth in the order to show cause. While procedural requirements may be relaxed in cases where "imprisonment presents obstacles to service that are beyond an inmate's power to control" (Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921), jurisdiction is not obtained in cases, such as the instant matter, where no showing has been made that the petitioner's status as a prison inmate prevented compliance (see, Matter of Cruz v. Goord, 278 A.D.2d 704; Matter of Burnside v. Lacy, 269 A.D.2d 634). We conclude that the petition was properly dismissed.
Indeed, service of papers only upon the Attorney-General has been found insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a State official named as a respondent in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see, Matter of Schachter v. Sobol, 213 A.D.2d 551, 552; Matter of Town of Clarkstown v. Howe, 206 A.D.2d 377, 377; Matter of Russo v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 181 A.D.2d 774, 775). Unlike Gibson v. Salvatore ( 102 A.D.2d 861), where a plaintiff's unsuccessful prior attempts to effectuate proper service prompted an application for an order permitting an alternative form of service pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) (see also, Silverman v. St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Ctr., 197 A.D.2d 459; Matter of Kelly v. Scully, 152 A.D.2d 698), or Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin ( 179 A.D.2d 921), where there were allegations that "imprisonment present[ed] obstacles to service that [were] beyond [the] inmate's power to control" (id., at 921; see, Matter of Boomer v. Walker, 242 A.D.2d 801, 801-802), the instant matter presented no such obstacles to petitioner. In our view, no viable reason has been proffered to support the court's application of a different rule for service simply because the adverse party, a State official, is the Superintendent of a State correctional facility.
Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and we affirm. While it is true that procedural requirements for obtaining jurisdiction may be relaxed in cases where "imprisonment presents obstacles to service that are beyond an inmate's power to control" (Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921, 921), petitioner presents nothing before this court that would support a conclusion that he was not capable of satisfying the applicable procedural requirements (see, Matter of Kinzer v. Executive Dept. — Div. of Parole, 255 A.D.2d 860, Thus, because petitioner failed to serve respondents and the Attorney-General in accordance with the relaxed service directives set forth in the order to show cause, the petition was properly dismissed (see,Matter of Russo v. Goord, 251 A.D.2d 835). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction arising out of petitioner's admitted failure to serve respondent within the time requirements set forth in the order to show cause authorizing service by mail. Although procedural requirements may be relaxed in cases where "imprisonment presents obstacles to service that are beyond an inmate's power to control" (Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921), petitioner presents nothing here that would support a conclusion that he was not capable of satisfying the applicable procedural requirements (see, Matter of Joshua v. Commissioner of Dept. of Correctional Servs., 240 A.D.2d 797). Accordingly, Supreme Court's judgment dismissing the petition must be affirmed. Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
While service requirements may be relaxed where there is a sufficient showing that imprisonment presents obstacles beyond the inmate's control, we find petitioner's contention that limited access to the facility law library impeded his ability to research service requirements to be unavailing inasmuch as the proper method of service was outlined in the order to show cause. Absent a showing that he was otherwise prevented from satisfying service requirements, petitioner failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over respondents (see, Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921). Nevertheless, were we to consider the merits, we would find petitioner's arguments that he was improperly denied access to the facility log book and that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence unpersuasive.
Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction arising out of petitioner's failure to serve the named respondents and file proof of service within the time requirements set forth in the order to show cause authorizing service by mail. While procedural requirements may be relaxed in cases where "imprisonment presents obstacles to service that are beyond an inmate's power to control" ( Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921), jurisdiction is not obtained in cases where there is a failure to comply with the procedural requirements that could have been satisfied ( see, id). We deem that to have been the case in this matter and we accordingly affirm Supreme Court's judgment dismissing the petition.
Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction arising out of petitioner's failure to serve the named respondents and file proof of service within the time requirements set forth in the order to show cause authorizing service by mail. While procedural requirements may be relaxed in cases where "imprisonment presents obstacles to service that are beyond an inmate's power to control" ( Matter of Hoyer v Coughlin, 179 AD2d 921), jurisdiction is not obtained in cases where the procedural requirements that could have been satisfied have not been ( see, supra). We deem that to have been the case in this matter and we accordingly affirm Supreme Court's judgment dismissing the petition.
Petitioner, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in Ulster County, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a policy restricting inmates' access to the law library under certain circumstances. We are, however, precluded from addressing the merits of petitioner's claim given that he has failed to comply with the service requirements contained in the order to show cause ( see, Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921). Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Cobb, J.). Supreme Court directed petitioner, by order to show cause, to serve respondent, the Attorney-General and the County Attorney for Albany County by ordinary first-class mail on or before October 16, 1992. Petitioner failed to comply with the service requirements and failed to show that "his imprisonment presented obstacles beyond his control which prevented him from complying with the service requirement" (Matter of Wright v. Parole Div., 132 A.D.2d 821, 822). Petitioner thus failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over respondent and the proceeding was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Hoyer v. Coughlin, 179 A.D.2d 921; Matter of Wright v. Parole Div., supra). Yesawich Jr., J.P., Crew III, White, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur.