Gertler v. Goodgold

New York Court of Appeals

Gertler v. Goodgold

489 N.E.2d 748, 66 N.Y.2d 946, 498 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18247

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by117 cases

This text of 489 N.E.2d 748 (Gertler v. Goodgold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gertler v. Goodgold, 489 N.E.2d 748, 66 N.Y.2d 946, 498 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18247 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[948]*948OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Joseph P. Sullivan at the Appellate Division (107 AD2d 481). We add with respect to the Statute of Limitations question that this is not a case, such as Mundy v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn. (44 NY2d 352), where by withdrawing its determination the respondent created an impression of nonfinality with respect to plaintiff’s allocated space. The letter of March 11, 1982 ended with the statement that "reorganizational plans are already firm.” That defendants continued to negotiate with plaintiff thereafter did not extend the four-month period of limitations (CPLR 217) (Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 974).

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone.

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

[948]*948OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Joseph P. Sullivan at the Appellate Division (107 AD2d 481). We add with respect to the Statute of Limitations question that this is not a case, such as Mundy v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn. (44 NY2d 352), where by withdrawing its determination the respondent created an impression of nonfinality with respect to plaintiff’s allocated space. The letter of March 11, 1982 ended with the statement that "reorganizational plans are already firm.” That defendants continued to negotiate with plaintiff thereafter did not extend the four-month period of limitations (CPLR 217) (Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 974).

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 N.E.2d 748, 66 N.Y.2d 946, 498 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gertler-v-goodgold-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack