City of New York v. DeCosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. DeCosta

289 A.D.2d 144, 734 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 144 (City of New York v. DeCosta) 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

City of New York v. DeCosta, 289 A.D.2d 144, 734 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York (Board), denied respondents’ application to dismiss the petition as time barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As limited to the facts in this record, Supreme Court properly found that respondent Board had created an ambiguity as to the date the challenged determination became final and binding by mailing a courtesy copy of a decision to the City’s Office of Labor Relations (OLR) after an initial copy of the decision had been delivered, and after the OLR inquired as to whether the initial decision contained the final version of a dissent submitted by two members of the Board. The ambiguity ere[145]*145ated by the Board should be resolved against it where, as here, it would otherwise result in petitioner being denied its day in court (see, Mundy v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 44 NY2d 352, 358). Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly ruled that the statutory period for filing the petition did not begin to run until the second decision had been delivered. Concur— Williams, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York (Board), denied respondents’ application to dismiss the petition as time barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As limited to the facts in this record, Supreme Court properly found that respondent Board had created an ambiguity as to the date the challenged determination became final and binding by mailing a courtesy copy of a decision to the City’s Office of Labor Relations (OLR) after an initial copy of the decision had been delivered, and after the OLR inquired as to whether the initial decision contained the final version of a dissent submitted by two members of the Board. The ambiguity ere[145]*145ated by the Board should be resolved against it where, as here, it would otherwise result in petitioner being denied its day in court (see, Mundy v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 44 NY2d 352, 358). Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly ruled that the statutory period for filing the petition did not begin to run until the second decision had been delivered. Concur— Williams, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 144, 734 N.Y.S.2d 450, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-decosta-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack