S.S. Canadiana Preservation Society, Inc. v. Boardman

262 A.D.2d 961, 694 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7125
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 961 (S.S. Canadiana Preservation Society, Inc. v. Boardman) 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
S.S. Canadiana Preservation Society, Inc. v. Boardman, 262 A.D.2d 961, 694 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding because it was not commenced within four months of the notice from respondent that it was withdrawing the grant of funds that had been awarded to petitioner [962]*962(see, CPLR 217). On December 8, 1994, respondent awarded petitioner the sum of $400,000 in ISTEA Funds in connection with the restoration and operation of the S.S. Canadiana, a lake steamer. On October 3, 1996, respondent notified petitioner that it was withdrawing the grant award because the S.S. Canadiana was not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. However, on December 31, 1997, respondent extended the time for petitioner to attempt to obtain historic designation to March 31, 1998. Petitioner was unable to obtain historic designation.

We reject petitioner’s contention that the Statute of Limitations began to run on December 31, 1997. The letter of October 3, 1996 provided notice of a final and binding determination by respondent (see, e.g., New York State Assn. of Counties v Axelrod, 78 NY2d 158, 165). The grant of an extension of time to comply with the final determination was merely incidental to that determination and “did not affect the determination which aggrieved [petitioner]” (Matter of Metropolitan Package Store Assn. v Duffy, 143 AD2d 832, 833, lv denied 73 NY2d 705). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

Related

KNAVEL, VICTORIA v. WEST SENECA CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Knavel v. West Seneca Central School District
149 A.D.3d 1614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 961, 694 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-canadiana-preservation-society-inc-v-boardman-nyappdiv-1999.