Thorton v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thorton v. New York City Housing Authority

100 A.D.3d 556, 954 N.Y.S.2d 524

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 556 (Thorton v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Thorton v. New York City Housing Authority, 100 A.D.3d 556, 954 N.Y.S.2d 524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur Engoron, J.), entered November 28, 2011, denying the petition seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority to terminate petitioner’s Section 8 rent subsidy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[557]*557Petitioner received the notice of final determination in April 2011 advising her that her Section 8 rent subsidy had been terminated. However, she did not commence this proceeding until October 2011, which was more than two months after the statute of limitations had expired (see Matter of Delgado v New York City Hous. Auth., 88 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 217 [1]). This Court cannot extend the statute of limitations (see CPLR 201), nor does it have discretion to address the merits of petitioner’s other arguments (see Matter of M & D Contrs. v New York City Dept. of Health, 233 AD2d 230, 231 [1st Dept 1996]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur Engoron, J.), entered November 28, 2011, denying the petition seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority to terminate petitioner’s Section 8 rent subsidy, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[557]*557Petitioner received the notice of final determination in April 2011 advising her that her Section 8 rent subsidy had been terminated. However, she did not commence this proceeding until October 2011, which was more than two months after the statute of limitations had expired (see Matter of Delgado v New York City Hous. Auth., 88 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 217 [1]). This Court cannot extend the statute of limitations (see CPLR 201), nor does it have discretion to address the merits of petitioner’s other arguments (see Matter of M & D Contrs. v New York City Dept. of Health, 233 AD2d 230, 231 [1st Dept 1996]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 556, 954 N.Y.S.2d 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorton-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack