Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District at Holbrook v. Jones

205 A.D.2d 486, 614 N.Y.S.2d 23
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 6, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 486 (Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District at Holbrook v. Jones) 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
Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District at Holbrook v. Jones, 205 A.D.2d 486, 614 N.Y.S.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

In an action for money had and received, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated November 4, 1993, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

[487]*487Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

This action is by three school districts in Suffolk County for money had and received by the defendant Town of Islip based upon the town’s failure to disburse collected school tax moneys at the times required by Suffolk County Tax Act § 13 (a) and § 14 (L 1920, ch 311, as amended). In Board of Educ. v Rettaliata (78 NY2d 128), the Court of Appeals determined, with reference to the instant action and 10 related actions by other school districts, that a school district may maintain a cause of action for money had and received to recover the unpaid accumulated interest on school tax moneys not withstanding prior acceptance of the principal sums on which that interest became due.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the causes of action of the plaintiffs for money had and received have a six-year Statute of Limitations (see, Matter of First Natl. City Bank v City of New York Fin. Admin., 36 NY2d 87; Cohen v City Co., 283 NY 112; Moore v Richmond Hill Sav. Bank, 117 AD2d 27), and therefore were not time-barred.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit (see, Board of Educ. v Rettaliata, 192 AD2d 569). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

DeGroat v. Whalen
201 A.D.3d 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Gonik v. Israel Discount Bank
80 A.D.3d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Vogel v. Tunick
19 Misc. 3d 853 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2008)
North Salem Central School District v. Mahopac Central School District
1 A.D.2d 418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 A.D.2d 486, 614 N.Y.S.2d 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-of-the-sachem-central-school-district-at-holbrook-v-nyappdiv-1994.