Kosciuszko Plaza LLC v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kosciuszko Plaza LLC v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

150 A.D.3d 520, 55 N.Y.S.3d 176

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

DecidedMay 16, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.3d 520 (Kosciuszko Plaza LLC v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development) 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

Kosciuszko Plaza LLC v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, 150 A.D.3d 520, 55 N.Y.S.3d 176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

[521]*521Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered April 27, 2016, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss as untimely the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated January 13, 2015, denying petitioner’s application for tax benefits under the J-51 Tax Incentive Program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s letter, dated January 13, 2015, informing petitioner that it had determined that petitioner’s project was ineligible for J-51 benefits was final and binding on petitioner, and the four-month statute of limitations began to run on petitioner’s receipt of it (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]; Matter of Essex County v Zagata, 91 NY2d 447, 453 [1998]). As petitioner acknowledges, the agency’s rules do not expressly provide for administrative review of the denial of a petition for J-51 benefits. Nor did petitioner’s request for reconsideration and respondent’s rejection of the request extend the statutory limitation period (Matter of Fiore v Board of Educ. Retirement Sys. of City of N.Y., 48 AD2d 850 [2d Dept 1975], affd for the reasons stated 39 NY2d 1016 [1976]; see also Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2012]).

In light of the foregoing, we do not address petitioner’s remaining arguments.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

[521]*521Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered April 27, 2016, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss as untimely the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated January 13, 2015, denying petitioner’s application for tax benefits under the J-51 Tax Incentive Program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s letter, dated January 13, 2015, informing petitioner that it had determined that petitioner’s project was ineligible for J-51 benefits was final and binding on petitioner, and the four-month statute of limitations began to run on petitioner’s receipt of it (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]; Matter of Essex County v Zagata, 91 NY2d 447, 453 [1998]). As petitioner acknowledges, the agency’s rules do not expressly provide for administrative review of the denial of a petition for J-51 benefits. Nor did petitioner’s request for reconsideration and respondent’s rejection of the request extend the statutory limitation period (Matter of Fiore v Board of Educ. Retirement Sys. of City of N.Y., 48 AD2d 850 [2d Dept 1975], affd for the reasons stated 39 NY2d 1016 [1976]; see also Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2012]).

In light of the foregoing, we do not address petitioner’s remaining arguments.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.3d 520, 55 N.Y.S.3d 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kosciuszko-plaza-llc-v-new-york-city-department-of-housing-preservation-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack