Quogue Associates v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quogue Associates v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

112 A.D.2d 999, 492 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52209

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 12, 1985·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated October 7, 1983, denying petitioner’s application for a permit to construct a single-family house on protected tidal wetlands, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 8, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner timely served the Attorney-General with the [1000]*1000notice of petition and petition in this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7804 (c), but failed to timely serve respondent. The Attorney-General is not a party to this proceeding, but rather the prospective attorney for a party. Thus, petitioner’s timely service upon the Attorney-General did not toll the statutory period of limitations and allow for untimely service of the notice of petition and petition upon the respondent (see, Matter of Cohen v State Tax Commn., 51 AD2d 79; Matter of Upstate Milk Coops, v State of New York Dept. of Agrie. & Mkts, 101 AD2d 940). Mangano, J. P., Brown, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated October 7, 1983, denying petitioner’s application for a permit to construct a single-family house on protected tidal wetlands, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 8, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner timely served the Attorney-General with the [1000]*1000notice of petition and petition in this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7804 (c), but failed to timely serve respondent. The Attorney-General is not a party to this proceeding, but rather the prospective attorney for a party. Thus, petitioner’s timely service upon the Attorney-General did not toll the statutory period of limitations and allow for untimely service of the notice of petition and petition upon the respondent (see, Matter of Cohen v State Tax Commn., 51 AD2d 79; Matter of Upstate Milk Coops, v State of New York Dept. of Agrie. & Mkts, 101 AD2d 940). Mangano, J. P., Brown, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Quogue Associates v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 112 A.D.2d 999, 492 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

112 A.D.2d 999 (Quogue Associates v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related