Colon v. State Insurance Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colon v. State Insurance Fund

245 A.D.2d 413, 666 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13085

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 413 (Colon v. State Insurance Fund) 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

Colon v. State Insurance Fund, 245 A.D.2d 413, 666 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the drivers of the cabs owned by the plaintiff Tony’s Taxi, Inc., are independent contractors, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County [414]*414(Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 8, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the issues presented in this declaratory judgment action should have been raised in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193; Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224). Since this action was commenced more than four months after the determination at issue, the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred (see, Solnick v Whalen, supra, at 229-230). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the drivers of the cabs owned by the plaintiff Tony’s Taxi, Inc., are independent contractors, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County [414]*414(Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 8, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the issues presented in this declaratory judgment action should have been raised in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193; Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224). Since this action was commenced more than four months after the determination at issue, the complaint was properly dismissed as time-barred (see, Solnick v Whalen, supra, at 229-230). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 413, 666 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colon-v-state-insurance-fund-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack