Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams

New York Court of Appeals

Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams

442 N.E.2d 58, 57 N.Y.2d 853, 455 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3744

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 12, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 442 N.E.2d 58 (Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams) 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

Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams, 442 N.E.2d 58, 57 N.Y.2d 853, 455 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3744 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Max Bloom. Because the order appealed from finally determined the proceeding, we do not answer the certified question (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], pp 357-358).

[856]*856We have not previously passed upon the construction of a statute requiring, as did subdivision 2 of section 352-e of the General Business Law, at the time here relevant, that a public official act “not later than thirty days after * * * filing.” We add to Justice Bloom’s decision, therefore, that although the phrase “not later than” may, when viewed against the remedial objectives of the statute in which the phrase appears, be construed to be directory only (Usery v Whitin Mach. Works, 554 F2d 498, 501-502; United States v Morris, 252 F2d 643, 648-649), where, as here, the Attorney-General is not foreclosed by filing from further action protective of the public interests and the purpose of the time limitation is to protect the property owner against unreasonable delay, the statute is properly construed to be mandatory, rather than directory (see Matter of Whalen v Lefkowitz, 36 NY2d 75, 78).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified not answered as unnecessary.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Max Bloom. Because the order appealed from finally determined the proceeding, we do not answer the certified question (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], pp 357-358).

[856]*856We have not previously passed upon the construction of a statute requiring, as did subdivision 2 of section 352-e of the General Business Law, at the time here relevant, that a public official act “not later than thirty days after * * * filing.” We add to Justice Bloom’s decision, therefore, that although the phrase “not later than” may, when viewed against the remedial objectives of the statute in which the phrase appears, be construed to be directory only (Usery v Whitin Mach. Works, 554 F2d 498, 501-502; United States v Morris, 252 F2d 643, 648-649), where, as here, the Attorney-General is not foreclosed by filing from further action protective of the public interests and the purpose of the time limitation is to protect the property owner against unreasonable delay, the statute is properly construed to be mandatory, rather than directory (see Matter of Whalen v Lefkowitz, 36 NY2d 75, 78).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified not answered as unnecessary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 N.E.2d 58, 57 N.Y.2d 853, 455 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonkjur-associates-v-abrams-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack