Sanders v. Coddington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanders v. Coddington

262 A.D.2d 104, 690 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6435

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

DecidedJune 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 104 (Sanders v. Coddington) 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

Sanders v. Coddington, 262 A.D.2d 104, 690 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered November 5, 1998, which, in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent’s production of records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), directed that the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered accordingly, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With the original determination of respondent denying petitioner’s FOIL request, petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies triggering the four-month Statute of Limitations within which to seek judicial review (see, CPLR 217; see, Matter of Van Steenburg v Thomas, 242 AD2d 802, 803, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). Since the instant proceeding was commenced more than four months from the original determination, it was [105]*105properly dismissed by Supreme Court as untimely. In any event, petitioner’s FOIL request lacks merit since he, inter alia, failed to provide sufficient identifying information for the requested items to be located. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered November 5, 1998, which, in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondent’s production of records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), directed that the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered accordingly, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

With the original determination of respondent denying petitioner’s FOIL request, petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies triggering the four-month Statute of Limitations within which to seek judicial review (see, CPLR 217; see, Matter of Van Steenburg v Thomas, 242 AD2d 802, 803, lv denied 91 NY2d 803). Since the instant proceeding was commenced more than four months from the original determination, it was [105]*105properly dismissed by Supreme Court as untimely. In any event, petitioner’s FOIL request lacks merit since he, inter alia, failed to provide sufficient identifying information for the requested items to be located. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 104, 690 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-coddington-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack