Clemons v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clemons v. New York City Housing Authority

110 A.D.3d 500, 972 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 500 (Clemons v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Clemons v. New York City Housing Authority, 110 A.D.3d 500, 972 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered July 10, 2012, which denied the petition, and granted respondent’s (NYCHA) cross motion to dismiss this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On October 6, 2011, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul NYCHA’s September 17, 2010 denial of her application to vacate her default in failing to appear at a hearing on charges against her tenancy. The proceeding is time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]) and this Court cannot extend the statute of limitations (see CPLR 201).

Petitioner’s excuse for the untimeliness of the petition is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Liddle, Robinson & Shoemaker v Shoemaker, 12 AD3d 282, 283 [1st Dept 2004]). In any event, her claimed ignorance of the requirement to commence an article 78 proceeding within four months of NYCHA’s final determination does not excuse her failure to comply with the statute of limitations (see generally Harris v City of New York, 297 AD2d 473 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 503 [2002]). Respondent was not under any duty to advise petitioner of the applicable statute of limitations (see Matter of Sumpter v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 176 [1st Dept 1999]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered July 10, 2012, which denied the petition, and granted respondent’s (NYCHA) cross motion to dismiss this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On October 6, 2011, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul NYCHA’s September 17, 2010 denial of her application to vacate her default in failing to appear at a hearing on charges against her tenancy. The proceeding is time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]) and this Court cannot extend the statute of limitations (see CPLR 201).

Petitioner’s excuse for the untimeliness of the petition is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Liddle, Robinson & Shoemaker v Shoemaker, 12 AD3d 282, 283 [1st Dept 2004]). In any event, her claimed ignorance of the requirement to commence an article 78 proceeding within four months of NYCHA’s final determination does not excuse her failure to comply with the statute of limitations (see generally Harris v City of New York, 297 AD2d 473 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 503 [2002]). Respondent was not under any duty to advise petitioner of the applicable statute of limitations (see Matter of Sumpter v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 176 [1st Dept 1999]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 500, 972 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clemons-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack