STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY. In the Matter of the Application of DARREN DOPP, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 DECISION AND ORDER of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, -against- RJINo.: 01-10-ST1051 NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON PUBLIC INTEGRITY, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Albany County, Special Term) (ustice Kimberly A. O'Connor, Presiding) APPEARANCES: DARREN DOPP Petitioner, Pro Se 11 Four Leaf Manor Rexford, New York 12148 BARRY GINSBERG Executive Director and General Counsel to the Commission on Public Integrity Attomey for Respondent (Bridget E. Holohan, Esq., of Counsel) 540 Broadway Albany, New York 12207 O'Connor, 3. Respondent New York State Commission on Public Integrity moves to dismiss this CPLR Article 78 proceeding, asserting that petitioner Darren Dopp has failed to obtain jurisdiction over the respondent by failing to serve the Attomey General and has waived his claims by failing to participate in the administrative hearing conducted by respondent.CPLR § 397 governs personal service upon the State of New York as well as its officers and agencies. In relevant part, the statute provides that service upon the State shall be made by personally delivering process to the Attorney General or to an assistant attomey general, within the State (See CPLR §§ 307[1] & 7804{c]). Petitioner's failure to personally serve the Attorney General is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the petition (See Matter of Maddox v. State of Univ. of New York at Albany, 32 A.D.3d 599 [3d Dep’t 2006); Matter of Rosenberg v. New York State Bd. of Regents, 2. A.D.3d 1003, 1004 [3d Dep’t 2003]). From the papers before the Court, it is clear that none of the papers were served on the Attorney General’s office as is required by CPLR § 7804(c) and CPLR § 307. Petitioner also failed to comply with the provisions of CPLR § 312-a or to obtain a court order authorizing service in some other manner. Neither petitioner's pro se status nor the fact that respondent has received actual notice permits or justifies the Court in assuming jurisdiction where petitioner has failed to obtain jurisdiction (See Matter ‘of Maddox v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, supra, at 600 [3d Dep’t 2006]; Goldmark v. Retone & Grading Corp, 226 A.D.24 143, 144 [Ist Dep't 1996]; Matter of Gerdts ¥v. State of New York, 210 A.D.2d 645, 646 [3d Dep’t 1994)). The Court, therefore finds that petitioner failed to obtain jurisdiction over the respondent. Thus, respondent's motion to dismiss the petition must be granted. As the petition is being dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it is unnecessary for the Court to consider respondent's alternative argument for dismissal, Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that the petition is dismissed and the relief requested therein is, in all respects, denied.This memorandum constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. The original Decision and Order is being forwarded to the attorney for the respondent. A copy of the Decision and Order together with all papers on the motion are being forwarded to the Office of the Albany County Clerk for filing. The signing of this Decision and Order and delivery of a copy of the same to the County Clerk shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule with respect to filing, entry, and notice of entry of the original Decision and Order. SO ORDERED. ENTER. Dated: July 7, 2010 Albany, New York Acting Supreme Court Justice Papers Considered: 1 Notice of Petition, dated January 8, 2010; Petition dated January 4, 2010, with Exhibits A-H annexed; Memorandum of Law, dated January 8, 2010; 2. Notice of Motion, dated January 25, 2010; Affidavits of Shane Bouchard, dated January 20 and February 25, 2010; Affidavit of Barry Ginsberg, Esq., dated January 25, 2010, with Exhibits 1-13 annexed; Memorandum of Law.