Roman v. Lombardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roman v. Lombardi

298 A.D.2d 313, 748 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10224

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 313 (Roman v. Lombardi) 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

Roman v. Lombardi, 298 A.D.2d 313, 748 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered September 4, 1998, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition, filed more than six months after petitioner received notice of the denial of his Freedom of Information Law request, was properly dismissed as time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of McBride v City of New York, 284 AD2d 197, 198). Petitioner’s argument, that it is reasonable to assume that the clerk actually received his papers within the four-month statute of limitations, but failed to stamp them or issue an index number until some three months later, is unsupported [314]*314by the record. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered September 4, 1998, which, inter alia, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition, filed more than six months after petitioner received notice of the denial of his Freedom of Information Law request, was properly dismissed as time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of McBride v City of New York, 284 AD2d 197, 198). Petitioner’s argument, that it is reasonable to assume that the clerk actually received his papers within the four-month statute of limitations, but failed to stamp them or issue an index number until some three months later, is unsupported [314]*314by the record. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 313, 748 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-lombardi-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack