Community Counseling & Mediation Services v. New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Community Counseling & Mediation Services v. New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

45 A.D.3d 315, 845 N.Y.S.2d 257

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 315 (Community Counseling & Mediation Services v. New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene) 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

Community Counseling & Mediation Services v. New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 45 A.D.3d 315, 845 N.Y.S.2d 257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered on or about September 12, 2006, denying the petition challenging respondent’s determination to charge the cost of cleaning petitioners’ Brooklyn property and dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the proceeding was barred by the four-month limitation period (CPLR 217 [1]). Here, the statute of limitations runs, at the latest, from when petitioners acknowledged receipt of the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene invoice and delinquency notice dated February 27, 2004, charging petitioners for the clean-up of its lot (see Matter of M & D Contrs. v New York City Dept. of Health, 233 AD2d 230 [1996]). This proceeding was commenced in March 2006, and was thus untimely. Petitioners’ request for reconsideration did not toll the statute of limitations (see Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v City of New York, 160 AD2d 489 [1990]) and the accompanying notice of claim was of no effect since this was an article 78 proceeding. Moreover, the four-month period had already expired when petitioners filed their request for reconsideration and notice of claim. In any event, we also agree with the court’s alternate determination on the merits. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered on or about September 12, 2006, denying the petition challenging respondent’s determination to charge the cost of cleaning petitioners’ Brooklyn property and dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the proceeding was barred by the four-month limitation period (CPLR 217 [1]). Here, the statute of limitations runs, at the latest, from when petitioners acknowledged receipt of the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene invoice and delinquency notice dated February 27, 2004, charging petitioners for the clean-up of its lot (see Matter of M & D Contrs. v New York City Dept. of Health, 233 AD2d 230 [1996]). This proceeding was commenced in March 2006, and was thus untimely. Petitioners’ request for reconsideration did not toll the statute of limitations (see Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v City of New York, 160 AD2d 489 [1990]) and the accompanying notice of claim was of no effect since this was an article 78 proceeding. Moreover, the four-month period had already expired when petitioners filed their request for reconsideration and notice of claim. In any event, we also agree with the court’s alternate determination on the merits. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 315, 845 N.Y.S.2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/community-counseling-mediation-services-v-new-york-department-of-health-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack