Chamberlain v. Planning Board of Perinton

184 A.D.2d 1015

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

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

184 A.D.2d 1015 (Chamberlain v. Planning Board of Perinton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

King v. Chmielewski
556 N.E.2d 435 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
Lebow v. Village of Lansing Planning Board
151 A.D.2d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)