Eshina Realty Corp. v. New York City Water Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eshina Realty Corp. v. New York City Water Board

63 A.D.3d 519, 880 N.Y.S.2d 476

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 519 (Eshina Realty Corp. v. New York City Water Board) 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

Eshina Realty Corp. v. New York City Water Board, 63 A.D.3d 519, 880 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), [520]*520entered on or about November 8, 2007, which, in a proceeding challenging respondents’ imposition of surcharges for failure to install a water meter, granted the petition to the extent of finding that petitioner’s administrative challenge to the surcharges was timely interposed with respect to the surcharges imposed after February 21, 2001, i.e., within four years of the filing of petitioner’s administrative complaint, and directing respondents to render a final determination on the merits of petitioner’s administrative complaint with respect to such surcharges, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject respondents’ argument that a single, one-time surcharge was imposed on July, 1, 2000 that continued to accrue annually until such time as petitioner installed a water meter, and that petitioner’s challenge thereto, which was not made until after July 1, 2004, is barred by a four-year administrative statute of limitations. The challenged assessments should be viewed as separate and discrete where they were separately imposed in and based on petitioner’s annual water bills. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), [520]*520entered on or about November 8, 2007, which, in a proceeding challenging respondents’ imposition of surcharges for failure to install a water meter, granted the petition to the extent of finding that petitioner’s administrative challenge to the surcharges was timely interposed with respect to the surcharges imposed after February 21, 2001, i.e., within four years of the filing of petitioner’s administrative complaint, and directing respondents to render a final determination on the merits of petitioner’s administrative complaint with respect to such surcharges, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject respondents’ argument that a single, one-time surcharge was imposed on July, 1, 2000 that continued to accrue annually until such time as petitioner installed a water meter, and that petitioner’s challenge thereto, which was not made until after July 1, 2004, is barred by a four-year administrative statute of limitations. The challenged assessments should be viewed as separate and discrete where they were separately imposed in and based on petitioner’s annual water bills. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 519, 880 N.Y.S.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eshina-realty-corp-v-new-york-city-water-board-nyappdiv-2009.