Rosenshein v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenshein v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Rochelle

110 A.D.2d 770, 488 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48670

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

DecidedApril 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 770 (Rosenshein v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Rochelle) 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

Rosenshein v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Rochelle, 110 A.D.2d 770, 488 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner urges us not to apply the four-month Statute of Limitations period to this proceeding because he claims that such an application would violate the strong public policy against unfair bidding practices for public contracts. While we fully agree with the aforementioned policy considerations, our [771]*771adoption of petitioner’s line of reasoning would emasculate the Statute of Limitations, allowing anyone to avoid the effect of the limitation period’s running merely by alleging a violation of public policy. Since the instant proceeding was not commenced until more than six months after the conveyance to which petitioner objects took place, the proceeding was properly dismissed as time barred (see, CPLR 217). Moreover, the petitioner’s request that the instant article 78 proceeding be converted into a plenary action for damages pursuant to CPLR 103 (c) was also properly denied. There is nothing to suggest that the instant proceeding was an improper procedural vehicle by which to obtain the relief sought by petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner has no separate contract claim against the respondents upon which such a. conversion could be predicated (see, Matter of Carroll-Ratner Corp. v City Manager of New Rochelle, 54 Misc 2d 625, affd 36 AD2d 795; Matter of Allen v Eberling, 24 AD2d 594). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Petitioner urges us not to apply the four-month Statute of Limitations period to this proceeding because he claims that such an application would violate the strong public policy against unfair bidding practices for public contracts. While we fully agree with the aforementioned policy considerations, our [771]*771adoption of petitioner’s line of reasoning would emasculate the Statute of Limitations, allowing anyone to avoid the effect of the limitation period’s running merely by alleging a violation of public policy. Since the instant proceeding was not commenced until more than six months after the conveyance to which petitioner objects took place, the proceeding was properly dismissed as time barred (see, CPLR 217). Moreover, the petitioner’s request that the instant article 78 proceeding be converted into a plenary action for damages pursuant to CPLR 103 (c) was also properly denied. There is nothing to suggest that the instant proceeding was an improper procedural vehicle by which to obtain the relief sought by petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner has no separate contract claim against the respondents upon which such a. conversion could be predicated (see, Matter of Carroll-Ratner Corp. v City Manager of New Rochelle, 54 Misc 2d 625, affd 36 AD2d 795; Matter of Allen v Eberling, 24 AD2d 594). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 770, 488 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenshein-v-board-of-education-of-city-school-district-of-city-of-new-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack