Ben-Mil Associates v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ben-Mil Associates v. Town of Islip

235 A.D.2d 419, 652 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 183

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 419 (Ben-Mil Associates v. Town of Islip) 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

Ben-Mil Associates v. Town of Islip, 235 A.D.2d 419, 652 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondent Town of Islip to reopen Raft Avenue, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated March 16, 1995, which dismissed the petition as time-barred.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant proceeding was brought more than four months after the determination to close Raft Avenue became final and binding (see, Matter of Village of Westbury v Department of Transp., 75 NY2d 62, 72). Accordingly, the proceeding is time-barred (see, CPLR 217). The petitioner’s contention that the Statute of Limitations would not begin to run until the respondent refused to reopen Raft Avenue is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit (see, Austin v Board of Higher Educ., 5 NY2d 430, 442). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto 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, inter alia, to compel the respondent Town of Islip to reopen Raft Avenue, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated March 16, 1995, which dismissed the petition as time-barred.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant proceeding was brought more than four months after the determination to close Raft Avenue became final and binding (see, Matter of Village of Westbury v Department of Transp., 75 NY2d 62, 72). Accordingly, the proceeding is time-barred (see, CPLR 217). The petitioner’s contention that the Statute of Limitations would not begin to run until the respondent refused to reopen Raft Avenue is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit (see, Austin v Board of Higher Educ., 5 NY2d 430, 442). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 419, 652 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-mil-associates-v-town-of-islip-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack