Aries Striping, Inc. v. Hurley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aries Striping, Inc. v. Hurley

202 A.D.2d 578, 610 N.Y.S.2d 821

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 1994·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the Department of Public Works dated June 20, 1991, which rejected a bid by the petitioner Aries Striping, Inc. for a public works project, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), dated March 3, 1992, which granted the motion by the respondents Joseph P. Hurley, as Commissioner of the Department of Public Works and Patrick G. Halpin, as County Executive of the County of Suffolk, to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the petitioners failed to obtain leave to join the petitioner Joseph Ghiseline as a party (see, CPLR 401), the court properly treated the petitioners’ cause of action under General Municipal Law § 51 asserted on Ghiseline’s behalf in the amended petition as a nullity. In addition, the court correctly found that the proceeding was untimely commenced (see, CPLR 217). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the Department of Public Works dated June 20, 1991, which rejected a bid by the petitioner Aries Striping, Inc. for a public works project, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), dated March 3, 1992, which granted the motion by the respondents Joseph P. Hurley, as Commissioner of the Department of Public Works and Patrick G. Halpin, as County Executive of the County of Suffolk, to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the petitioners failed to obtain leave to join the petitioner Joseph Ghiseline as a party (see, CPLR 401), the court properly treated the petitioners’ cause of action under General Municipal Law § 51 asserted on Ghiseline’s behalf in the amended petition as a nullity. In addition, the court correctly found that the proceeding was untimely commenced (see, CPLR 217). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Aries Striping, Inc. v. Hurley, 202 A.D.2d 578, 610 N.Y.S.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

202 A.D.2d 578 (Aries Striping, Inc. v. Hurley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related