Samuels v. Laufer

New York Supreme Court

Samuels v. Laufer

28 Misc. 2d 208, 219 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3591

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 Misc. 2d 208 (Samuels v. Laufer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samuels v. Laufer, 28 Misc. 2d 208, 219 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3591 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

William R. Brennan, Jr., J.

This court is constrained to grant the motion of the respondents to dismiss the petition as a matter of law because the proceeding was not commenced within 30 days after the filing of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in the office of the Village Clerk (Village Law, § 179-b ; Civ. Prac. Act, art. 78, § 1293). That many limitations of time depend on notice of entry of decisions (cf. Matter of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Village of Sloan Bd. of Appeals, 13 Misc 2d 631, 635) does not invalidate statutes prescribing limitations based on entry or filing (some of which are listed in Matter of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Village of Sloan Bd. of Appeals, supra). The petitioner’s comments in this situation are, therefore, better directed to the Legislature rather than the courts. It may be noted that the petitioner was not completely without remedy because of the delay in filing of the decision (cf. Matter of Pierce v. Mannion, 267 App. Div. 958).

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

William R. Brennan, Jr., J.

This court is constrained to grant the motion of the respondents to dismiss the petition as a matter of law because the proceeding was not commenced within 30 days after the filing of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in the office of the Village Clerk (Village Law, § 179-b ; Civ. Prac. Act, art. 78, § 1293). That many limitations of time depend on notice of entry of decisions (cf. Matter of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Village of Sloan Bd. of Appeals, 13 Misc 2d 631, 635) does not invalidate statutes prescribing limitations based on entry or filing (some of which are listed in Matter of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Village of Sloan Bd. of Appeals, supra). The petitioner’s comments in this situation are, therefore, better directed to the Legislature rather than the courts. It may be noted that the petitioner was not completely without remedy because of the delay in filing of the decision (cf. Matter of Pierce v. Mannion, 267 App. Div. 958).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 2d 208, 219 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuels-v-laufer-nysupct-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack