H.C. Black Realty Co. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

H.C. Black Realty Co. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

201 A.D.2d 432, 607 N.Y.S.2d 944

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 432 (H.C. Black Realty Co. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) 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

H.C. Black Realty Co. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 201 A.D.2d 432, 607 N.Y.S.2d 944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 9, 1993, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s rejection of petitioner’s petition for administrative review (PAR) as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s bare denial of receipt of respondent’s over[433]*433charge order was insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by the sworn statements of respondent’s mail-room personnel as to the routine office procedures followed in mailing such orders (Woodner Co. v Higgins, 179 AD2d 444, lv denied 80 NY2d 756). Accordingly, the PAR filed far beyond respondent’s 35-day limit was properly rejected. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered February 9, 1993, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s rejection of petitioner’s petition for administrative review (PAR) as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s bare denial of receipt of respondent’s over[433]*433charge order was insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by the sworn statements of respondent’s mail-room personnel as to the routine office procedures followed in mailing such orders (Woodner Co. v Higgins, 179 AD2d 444, lv denied 80 NY2d 756). Accordingly, the PAR filed far beyond respondent’s 35-day limit was properly rejected. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 432, 607 N.Y.S.2d 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-black-realty-co-v-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack