R.C. 27th Avenue Realty Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R.C. 27th Avenue Realty Corp. v. City of New York

278 A.D.2d 142, 717 N.Y.S.2d 594, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14045

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 27, 1998, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated December 12, 1996, finding petitioner in default of contract, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 11, 2000, denying petitioner’s motion to renew its application for CPLR article 78 relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if petitioner’s claim, essentially one for breach of contract, had been appropriately asserted in its application for relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Abiele Contr. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 91 NY2d 1, 7-8), the petition remains subject to dismissal on the merits. In view of petitioner’s excessive delay in performing pursuant to the contract and [143]*143its other non-compliance with the contract terms, respondent’s default determination was not arbitrary and capricious or irrational.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 27, 1998, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated December 12, 1996, finding petitioner in default of contract, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 11, 2000, denying petitioner’s motion to renew its application for CPLR article 78 relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if petitioner’s claim, essentially one for breach of contract, had been appropriately asserted in its application for relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Abiele Contr. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 91 NY2d 1, 7-8), the petition remains subject to dismissal on the merits. In view of petitioner’s excessive delay in performing pursuant to the contract and [143]*143its other non-compliance with the contract terms, respondent’s default determination was not arbitrary and capricious or irrational.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

R.C. 27th Avenue Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 278 A.D.2d 142, 717 N.Y.S.2d 594, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 142 (R.C. 27th Avenue Realty Corp. v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related