M & D Contractors v. New York City Department of Health

233 A.D.2d 230, 649 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 230 (M & D Contractors v. New York City Department of Health) 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
M & D Contractors v. New York City Department of Health, 233 A.D.2d 230, 649 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered June 1, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent Department of Health’s assessment of charges for cleanup and pest control at petitioner’s premises, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[231]*231The four-month Statute of Limitations began to run, at the latest, when petitioner visited the office of respondent Department of Finance to ascertain why it had not been receiving tax bills for the subject property, and then, having obtained the bills,, saw that respondent Department of Health had charged it for pest control and cleanup performed on various occasions years before (see, Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v City of New York, 160 AD2d 489). Petitioner’s subsequent correspondence with the Department of Health, in an attempt to obtain copies of violation notices and to otherwise ascertain the factual particulars surrounding the assessments, did not extend or toll its time to initiate an article 78 proceeding (see, Matter of Edwards v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys., 190 AD2d 545, citing Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v City of New York, supra). As the proceeding is time-barred, petitioner’s argument that its right to due process was violated by the placement of liens on the property before it had been given notice of any violations cannot be addressed. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Lombard v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
125 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Thorton v. New York City Housing Authority
100 A.D.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Saunders v. Rhea
92 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Gray v. Hernandez
22 Misc. 3d 678 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Community Counseling & Mediation Services v. New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
45 A.D.3d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Brooklyn LLC v. City of New York
16 Misc. 3d 681 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Mitchell v. City of New York Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
23 A.D.3d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
105th Street Development Corp. v. Commissioner of Department of Health
189 Misc. 2d 342 (New York Supreme Court, 2001)
Giordano v. City of New York Department of Finance
253 A.D.2d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 A.D.2d 230, 649 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-d-contractors-v-new-york-city-department-of-health-nyappdiv-1996.