D'Amato v. City of New York Department of Housing Preservation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Amato v. City of New York Department of Housing Preservation

246 A.D.2d 472, 667 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 633

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 472 (D'Amato v. City of New York Department of Housing Preservation) 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

D'Amato v. City of New York Department of Housing Preservation, 246 A.D.2d 472, 667 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 633 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered August 12, 1996, which in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to annul respondent’s determination imposing certain emergency repair charges, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed this article 78 proceeding as time-barred. Petitioner was notified, at the very latest, of the administrative determination by the letters dated August 24 and September 28, 1995, and this matter was not instituted until on or about February 6, 1996, thereby exceeding the four-month Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217). Neither these letters nor subsequent letters from respondents to petitioner created any ambiguity as to finality (see, Matter of 80 E. 116th St. Corp. v City of N. Y. Dept. of Hous. Preservation & Dev., 245 AD2d 107). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered August 12, 1996, which in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to annul respondent’s determination imposing certain emergency repair charges, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed this article 78 proceeding as time-barred. Petitioner was notified, at the very latest, of the administrative determination by the letters dated August 24 and September 28, 1995, and this matter was not instituted until on or about February 6, 1996, thereby exceeding the four-month Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217). Neither these letters nor subsequent letters from respondents to petitioner created any ambiguity as to finality (see, Matter of 80 E. 116th St. Corp. v City of N. Y. Dept. of Hous. Preservation & Dev., 245 AD2d 107). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 472, 667 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damato-v-city-of-new-york-department-of-housing-preservation-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack