Chrysler v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chrysler v. Goord

49 A.D.3d 1342, 853 N.Y.2d 811

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 21, 2008·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

[1343]*1343Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the CPLR article 78 petition as time-barred (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The applicable four-month statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 217 did not begin to run until petitioner “received notice of the . . . determination” (Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832, 834 [1983]), and respondent failed to meet his burden of establishing that petitioner received such notice more than four months before commencing this proceeding (see Matter of Edwards v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 1044, 1044-1045 [1993]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

[1343]*1343Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the CPLR article 78 petition as time-barred (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). The applicable four-month statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 217 did not begin to run until petitioner “received notice of the . . . determination” (Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832, 834 [1983]), and respondent failed to meet his burden of establishing that petitioner received such notice more than four months before commencing this proceeding (see Matter of Edwards v Coughlin, 191 AD2d 1044, 1044-1045 [1993]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Chrysler v. Goord, 49 A.D.3d 1342, 853 N.Y.2d 811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 1342 (Chrysler v. Goord) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related