45435 Realty Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

45435 Realty Co. v. City of New York

200 A.D.2d 501, 606 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 486

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 501 (45435 Realty Co. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

45435 Realty Co. v. City of New York, 200 A.D.2d 501, 606 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which converted plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding and granted defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss it as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is axiomatic that the proper vehicle to challenge the final determination of an administrative agency is an article 78 proceeding. The receipt of a water bill constitutes a final and binding determination of the issuing agency (Matter of Miller [502]*502v McGough, 97 AD2d 416). Thus, the IAS Court properly considered the plaintiff’s action as an article 78 proceeding and applied the four-month Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217). Because plaintiff failed to commence this action until April 8, 1993, more than four months after its outstanding water and sewer charges were due on June 30, 1992 and August 3, 1992, its claims were time-barred. Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated claim that it was improperly billed for these services does not alter this result. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which converted plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding and granted defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss it as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is axiomatic that the proper vehicle to challenge the final determination of an administrative agency is an article 78 proceeding. The receipt of a water bill constitutes a final and binding determination of the issuing agency (Matter of Miller [502]*502v McGough, 97 AD2d 416). Thus, the IAS Court properly considered the plaintiff’s action as an article 78 proceeding and applied the four-month Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217). Because plaintiff failed to commence this action until April 8, 1993, more than four months after its outstanding water and sewer charges were due on June 30, 1992 and August 3, 1992, its claims were time-barred. Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated claim that it was improperly billed for these services does not alter this result. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 501, 606 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/45435-realty-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack