Chamberlain v. Planning Board of Perinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chamberlain v. Planning Board of Perinton

184 A.D.2d 1015

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

DecidedJune 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 1015 (Chamberlain v. Planning Board of Perinton) 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

Chamberlain v. Planning Board of Perinton, 184 A.D.2d 1015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that this CPLR article 78 proceeding was not [1016]*1016commenced within 30 days from the filing of the Planning Board’s decision (see, Town Law § 282; Matter of King v Chmielewski, 76 NY2d 182, 186). Filing of the notice of petition and petition with the court does not commence the proceeding. An article 78 proceeding against a planning board is commenced by service of the notice of petition and petition pursuant to CPLR 312 or 312-a (see, CPLR 403 [c]; Matter of Lebow v Village of Lansing Planning Bd., 151 AD2d 865, 866). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Aifronti, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that this CPLR article 78 proceeding was not [1016]*1016commenced within 30 days from the filing of the Planning Board’s decision (see, Town Law § 282; Matter of King v Chmielewski, 76 NY2d 182, 186). Filing of the notice of petition and petition with the court does not commence the proceeding. An article 78 proceeding against a planning board is commenced by service of the notice of petition and petition pursuant to CPLR 312 or 312-a (see, CPLR 403 [c]; Matter of Lebow v Village of Lansing Planning Bd., 151 AD2d 865, 866). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Aifronti, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlain-v-planning-board-of-perinton-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack