Mango v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mango v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

25 A.D.3d 324, 805 N.Y.S.2d 832

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 324 (Mango v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.) 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

Mango v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp., 25 A.D.3d 324, 805 N.Y.S.2d 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), entered August 20, 2004, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination selecting the winning design in the competition for the World Trade Center memorial, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proceeding, which was commenced more than four months after respondent’s November 19, 2003 public announcement of the Stage II finalists, was properly dismissed as untimely (Johns v Rampe, 23 AD3d 283 [2005]). State Administrative Procedure Act § 307, which requires that a “final deci[325]*325sion, determination or order adverse to a party in an adjudicatory proceeding” be in writing and delivered or mailed to each party or his/her attorney of record, does not avail petitioner. The subject competition was not an adjudicatory proceeding as defined in State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 [3]). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), entered August 20, 2004, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination selecting the winning design in the competition for the World Trade Center memorial, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proceeding, which was commenced more than four months after respondent’s November 19, 2003 public announcement of the Stage II finalists, was properly dismissed as untimely (Johns v Rampe, 23 AD3d 283 [2005]). State Administrative Procedure Act § 307, which requires that a “final deci[325]*325sion, determination or order adverse to a party in an adjudicatory proceeding” be in writing and delivered or mailed to each party or his/her attorney of record, does not avail petitioner. The subject competition was not an adjudicatory proceeding as defined in State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 [3]). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 324, 805 N.Y.S.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mango-v-lower-manhattan-development-corp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack