Pelt v. City of New York Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pelt v. City of New York Police Department

215 A.D.2d 208, 626 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4993

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

DecidedMay 11, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 208 (Pelt v. City of New York Police Department) 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

Pelt v. City of New York Police Department, 215 A.D.2d 208, 626 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered July 1, 1994, which in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent’s denial of petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law request, dismissed [209]*209the petition as barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s article 78 proceeding was untimely commenced when the Clerk of the court received his petition almost five months after the denial of his administrative appeal was communicated to him by letter, and not, as he claims, when he allegedly mailed the petition to the Clerk more than three months earlier (Enos v City of Rochester, 206 AD2d 159). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered July 1, 1994, which in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent’s denial of petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law request, dismissed [209]*209the petition as barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s article 78 proceeding was untimely commenced when the Clerk of the court received his petition almost five months after the denial of his administrative appeal was communicated to him by letter, and not, as he claims, when he allegedly mailed the petition to the Clerk more than three months earlier (Enos v City of Rochester, 206 AD2d 159). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 208, 626 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelt-v-city-of-new-york-police-department-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack