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

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 142 (R.C. 27th Avenue Realty Corp. v. City of New York) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 142, 717 N.Y.S.2d 594, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rc-27th-avenue-realty-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack