Hanmer v. Tofany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hanmer v. Tofany

31 A.D.2d 782, 296 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4768

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 782 (Hanmer v. Tofany) 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

Hanmer v. Tofany, 31 A.D.2d 782, 296 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: 'Special Term erroneously dismissed appellant’s petition on the ground that it was not made within four months after the determination to be reviewed became final and binding on the petitioner (CPLR 217). A determination does not become final and binding until the petitioner has had notice that an order affecting him has been issued (Matter of Abramson v. Commissioner of Educ., 1 A D 2d 366, 371; Matter of Coffer v. Macduff, 205 Misc. 972). The petition herein, which was presented at Special Term on September 13, 1967, alleges that petitioner received notification of the revocation of his driver’s license and the registration of his motor - vehicle on September 6, 1967. Although respondent alleges that the revocation of petitioner’s license occurred on April 26, 1967, which was more than four months prior .to the .commencement of this proceeding, there is no proof that petitioner received notice thereof prior to ¡September 6, 1967 as alleged in his petition. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga ¡Special Term dismissing peti[783]*783tion.) Present — Bastow, P. J., Goldman, Del Vecchio, Marsh and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: 'Special Term erroneously dismissed appellant’s petition on the ground that it was not made within four months after the determination to be reviewed became final and binding on the petitioner (CPLR 217). A determination does not become final and binding until the petitioner has had notice that an order affecting him has been issued (Matter of Abramson v. Commissioner of Educ., 1 A D 2d 366, 371; Matter of Coffer v. Macduff, 205 Misc. 972). The petition herein, which was presented at Special Term on September 13, 1967, alleges that petitioner received notification of the revocation of his driver’s license and the registration of his motor - vehicle on September 6, 1967. Although respondent alleges that the revocation of petitioner’s license occurred on April 26, 1967, which was more than four months prior .to the .commencement of this proceeding, there is no proof that petitioner received notice thereof prior to ¡September 6, 1967 as alleged in his petition. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga ¡Special Term dismissing peti[783]*783tion.) Present — Bastow, P. J., Goldman, Del Vecchio, Marsh and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 782, 296 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanmer-v-tofany-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack