Matter of Brown v. Rhea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Brown v. Rhea

121 A.D.3d 537, 993 N.Y.S.2d 897

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2014

Docket13251 401604/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 537 (Matter of Brown v. Rhea) 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

Matter of Brown v. Rhea, 121 A.D.3d 537, 993 N.Y.S.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered July 16, 2013, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which terminated petitioner’s tenancy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations. Irrespective of whether NYCHA properly sent the notice of its January 25, 2012 final determination to terminate petitioner’s tenancy or whether petitioner actually received the mailing, the evidence indicates that petitioner knew or should have known that she was aggrieved by the determination on February 2, 2012, when she was personally served with NYCHA’s 30-day notice to vacate, which explicitly stated that it was based on the final determination issued the month before (see 90-92 Wadsworth Ave. Tenants Assn. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 227 AD2d 331 [1st Dept 1996]). However, petitioner did not initiate this proceeding until July 18, 2012, more than four *538 months after she received the notice to vacate (see CPLR 217 [1]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered July 16, 2013, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which terminated petitioner’s tenancy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations. Irrespective of whether NYCHA properly sent the notice of its January 25, 2012 final determination to terminate petitioner’s tenancy or whether petitioner actually received the mailing, the evidence indicates that petitioner knew or should have known that she was aggrieved by the determination on February 2, 2012, when she was personally served with NYCHA’s 30-day notice to vacate, which explicitly stated that it was based on the final determination issued the month before (see 90-92 Wadsworth Ave. Tenants Assn. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 227 AD2d 331 [1st Dept 1996]). However, petitioner did not initiate this proceeding until July 18, 2012, more than four *538 months after she received the notice to vacate (see CPLR 217 [1]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 537, 993 N.Y.S.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-brown-v-rhea-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack