Cohen v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development

246 A.D.2d 393, 666 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 252

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 393 (Cohen v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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

Cohen v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 246 A.D.2d 393, 666 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), entered on or about July 2, 1997, which, in a proceeding to annul re[394]*394spondent agency’s denial of petitioner’s appeal of respondent middle income housing corporation’s denial of petitioner’s application for succession rights to an apartment, granted respondent agency’s motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly held that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by respondent agency’s proof of mailing some 14 months before commencement of this proceeding (see, Woodner Co. v Higgins, 179 AD2d 444, lv denied 80 NY2d 756). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), entered on or about July 2, 1997, which, in a proceeding to annul re[394]*394spondent agency’s denial of petitioner’s appeal of respondent middle income housing corporation’s denial of petitioner’s application for succession rights to an apartment, granted respondent agency’s motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly held that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by respondent agency’s proof of mailing some 14 months before commencement of this proceeding (see, Woodner Co. v Higgins, 179 AD2d 444, lv denied 80 NY2d 756). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 393, 666 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-department-of-housing-preservation-development-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack