Tri-Rail Construction, Inc. v. Environmental Control Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tri-Rail Construction, Inc. v. Environmental Control Board

104 A.D.3d 445, 960 N.Y.S.2d 307

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 445 (Tri-Rail Construction, Inc. v. Environmental Control Board) 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

Tri-Rail Construction, Inc. v. Environmental Control Board, 104 A.D.3d 445, 960 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered December 9, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the petition to set aside respondent’s denial of petitioner’s requests to vacate defaults on 17 notices of violation, and granted hearings on the violations, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Contrary to Supreme Court’s finding that the limitations period had not elapsed because the denial letters were sent to addresses that were not petitioner’s address, the evidence in the record establishes that the subject letters were, in fact, all mailed to, among other places, petitioner’s correct address, thereby triggering the four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; and see Matter of Carter v State of N.Y., Exec. Dept., Div. of Parole, 95 NY2d 267, 270 [2000]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered December 9, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the petition to set aside respondent’s denial of petitioner’s requests to vacate defaults on 17 notices of violation, and granted hearings on the violations, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Contrary to Supreme Court’s finding that the limitations period had not elapsed because the denial letters were sent to addresses that were not petitioner’s address, the evidence in the record establishes that the subject letters were, in fact, all mailed to, among other places, petitioner’s correct address, thereby triggering the four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; and see Matter of Carter v State of N.Y., Exec. Dept., Div. of Parole, 95 NY2d 267, 270 [2000]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 445, 960 N.Y.S.2d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-rail-construction-inc-v-environmental-control-board-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack