Ragi v. Servis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ragi v. Servis

91 A.D.3d 1169, 937 N.Y.2d 422

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1169 (Ragi v. Servis) 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

Ragi v. Servis, 91 A.D.3d 1169, 937 N.Y.2d 422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

[1170]*1170We affirm. The four-month statute of limitations period to challenge the administrative determination here began to accrue on July 29, 2009, when petitioner was first informed that his request to rescind the modified consent order was denied (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Adams v Carrion, 85 AD3d 1517, 1518 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]). The rejection of petitioner’s request on that date reflected a definitive position, it was final and binding, and no further administrative steps were available to petitioner (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom, of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]; Matter of Essex County v Zagata, 91 NY2d 447, 453 [1998]). As this proceeding was not commenced within four months of the denial of petitioner’s request, Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss (see Belmonte v Saratoga Youth Hockey, Inc., 18 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2005]; Matter of Saraf v Vacanti, 223 AD2d 836, 837-838 [1996]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unavailing.

Mercure, A.P.J., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Rose, J.

[1170]*1170We affirm. The four-month statute of limitations period to challenge the administrative determination here began to accrue on July 29, 2009, when petitioner was first informed that his request to rescind the modified consent order was denied (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Adams v Carrion, 85 AD3d 1517, 1518 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 717 [2011]). The rejection of petitioner’s request on that date reflected a definitive position, it was final and binding, and no further administrative steps were available to petitioner (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom, of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]; Matter of Essex County v Zagata, 91 NY2d 447, 453 [1998]). As this proceeding was not commenced within four months of the denial of petitioner’s request, Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss (see Belmonte v Saratoga Youth Hockey, Inc., 18 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2005]; Matter of Saraf v Vacanti, 223 AD2d 836, 837-838 [1996]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unavailing.

Mercure, A.P.J., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1169, 937 N.Y.2d 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragi-v-servis-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack