Santangelo v. Murtha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santangelo v. Murtha

199 A.D.2d 324, 606 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11844

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 324 (Santangelo v. Murtha) 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

Santangelo v. Murtha, 199 A.D.2d 324, 606 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review an undated determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Málveme, which denied the petitioners’ application for a variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated November 8, 1991, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the petitioners failed to commence this proceeding within 30 days of the filing of the respondents’ determination with the Village Clerk, this proceeding is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, Village Law § 7-712 [3]; Matter of De Bellis v Luney, 128 AD2d 778). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review an undated determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Málveme, which denied the petitioners’ application for a variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated November 8, 1991, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the petitioners failed to commence this proceeding within 30 days of the filing of the respondents’ determination with the Village Clerk, this proceeding is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, Village Law § 7-712 [3]; Matter of De Bellis v Luney, 128 AD2d 778). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 324, 606 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santangelo-v-murtha-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack