Endrich Realty Corp. v. Rhea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Endrich Realty Corp. v. Rhea

109 A.D.3d 739, 971 N.Y.S.2d 297

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 739 (Endrich Realty Corp. v. Rhea) 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

Endrich Realty Corp. v. Rhea, 109 A.D.3d 739, 971 N.Y.S.2d 297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 20, 2012, denying the petition seeking to compel respondent New York City Housing Authority to reinstate Section 8 housing subsidy payments for July and August 2011 and granting respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 as time-barred, unanimously affirmed on the law, without costs.

We need not decide what the earliest accrual date would be in this case. There can be no doubt that the limitations period began to run as of November 2011, if not sooner, when respondent failed to pay all past due amounts (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom, of City of N.Y, 5 NY3d 30 [2005]). Although the total payment did not specify which months’ payments were being withheld, it should have been clear to petitioner that it had not received all the funds owed. Because petitioner did not commence the proceed[740]*740ing within four months of November 2011, the proceeding must be dismissed as time-barred. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Freedman, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered September 20, 2012, denying the petition seeking to compel respondent New York City Housing Authority to reinstate Section 8 housing subsidy payments for July and August 2011 and granting respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 as time-barred, unanimously affirmed on the law, without costs.

We need not decide what the earliest accrual date would be in this case. There can be no doubt that the limitations period began to run as of November 2011, if not sooner, when respondent failed to pay all past due amounts (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom, of City of N.Y, 5 NY3d 30 [2005]). Although the total payment did not specify which months’ payments were being withheld, it should have been clear to petitioner that it had not received all the funds owed. Because petitioner did not commence the proceed[740]*740ing within four months of November 2011, the proceeding must be dismissed as time-barred. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Freedman, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 739, 971 N.Y.S.2d 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/endrich-realty-corp-v-rhea-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack