Smith v. Popolizio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Popolizio

160 A.D.2d 370

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

DecidedApril 12, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 370 (Smith v. Popolizio) 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

Smith v. Popolizio, 160 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered on or about March 1, 1989, denying and dismissing the instant CPLR article 78 petition as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this proceeding, petitioner, a tenant in a public housing accommodation, was charged by respondent in an administrative proceeding with chronic delinquency in the payment of rent. Petitioner failed to appear during the course of administrative proceedings and a determination dated December 2, 1987, the receipt of which is not at issue, rendered, terminating her tenancy. Petitioner did not challenge this determination by commencement of an article 78 proceeding. Instead, on February 26, 1988 she sought to vacate her default, which application was denied. This article 78 proceeding was commenced on June 24, 1988, more than six months after the initial determination but within four months of the refusal to vacate the default. The motion court dismissed the petition on Statute of Limitations grounds and this appeal followed.

We affirm for the reasons stated in Matter of Simmons v Popolizio (160 AD2d 368 [decided herewith]), which presents the same arguments as are advanced here. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered on or about March 1, 1989, denying and dismissing the instant CPLR article 78 petition as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this proceeding, petitioner, a tenant in a public housing accommodation, was charged by respondent in an administrative proceeding with chronic delinquency in the payment of rent. Petitioner failed to appear during the course of administrative proceedings and a determination dated December 2, 1987, the receipt of which is not at issue, rendered, terminating her tenancy. Petitioner did not challenge this determination by commencement of an article 78 proceeding. Instead, on February 26, 1988 she sought to vacate her default, which application was denied. This article 78 proceeding was commenced on June 24, 1988, more than six months after the initial determination but within four months of the refusal to vacate the default. The motion court dismissed the petition on Statute of Limitations grounds and this appeal followed.

We affirm for the reasons stated in Matter of Simmons v Popolizio (160 AD2d 368 [decided herewith]), which presents the same arguments as are advanced here. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-popolizio-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack