Matter of Walker v. David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Walker v. David

137 A.D.3d 459, 25 N.Y.S.3d 881

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2016

Docket402 400829/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 459 (Matter of Walker v. David) 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 Walker v. David, 137 A.D.3d 459, 25 N.Y.S.3d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*460 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered November 28, 2014, denying the petition seeking to compel respondent to disclose documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This proceeding is time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]). On December 6, 2013, the New York City Police Department’s Records Access Appeals Officer denied petitioner’s FOIL request. Petitioner attempted to commence an article 78 proceeding challenging that determination in Supreme Court, Genesee County, but that court rejected petitioner’s filings, informing him that he must file his proceeding in New York or Queens County, pursuant to CPLR 506 (b) and 7804 (b). Thereafter, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding on June 6, 2014, more than four months after the denial of his administrative appeal (see Matter of Swinton v Record Access Officers for City of N.Y. Police Dept., 198 AD2d 165 [1st Dept 1993]). The filing of petitioner’s papers was effective upon their physical receipt by Supreme Court, New York County (see Matter of Grant v Senkowski, 95 NY2d 605, 609 [2001]), and this Court has no discretion to extend the statute of limitations (see Matter of Clemons v New York City Hous. Auth., 110 AD3d 500 [1st Dept 2013]; see also CPLR 201). Petitioner’s contention that Genesee County Supreme Court’s ruling on venue was improper is not relevant to the untimeliness of this proceeding.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

*460 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered November 28, 2014, denying the petition seeking to compel respondent to disclose documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This proceeding is time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]). On December 6, 2013, the New York City Police Department’s Records Access Appeals Officer denied petitioner’s FOIL request. Petitioner attempted to commence an article 78 proceeding challenging that determination in Supreme Court, Genesee County, but that court rejected petitioner’s filings, informing him that he must file his proceeding in New York or Queens County, pursuant to CPLR 506 (b) and 7804 (b). Thereafter, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding on June 6, 2014, more than four months after the denial of his administrative appeal (see Matter of Swinton v Record Access Officers for City of N.Y. Police Dept., 198 AD2d 165 [1st Dept 1993]). The filing of petitioner’s papers was effective upon their physical receipt by Supreme Court, New York County (see Matter of Grant v Senkowski, 95 NY2d 605, 609 [2001]), and this Court has no discretion to extend the statute of limitations (see Matter of Clemons v New York City Hous. Auth., 110 AD3d 500 [1st Dept 2013]; see also CPLR 201). Petitioner’s contention that Genesee County Supreme Court’s ruling on venue was improper is not relevant to the untimeliness of this proceeding.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 459, 25 N.Y.S.3d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-walker-v-david-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack