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

114 A.D.3d 421, 979 N.Y.S.2d 526

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 421 (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, 114 A.D.3d 421, 979 N.Y.S.2d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered March 8, 2012, which, inter alia, granted the petition to set aside respondent’s denial of petitioner’s requests to vacate default judgments on the first and second notices of violation (NOVs), and granted hearings on the violations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

The record demonstrates that the subject NOVs were properly served on petitioner pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b), and petitioner defaulted on both NOV hearing dates. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled the requirements set forth in 48 RC3SÍY 3-82 (c), inasmuch as it failed to request a new hearing within one year of the time it learned of the existence of the violations. Petitioner also failed to request a stay of entry of the default judgments for “good cause shown” within 30 days of respondent mailing the notices of default (NY City Charter § 1049-a [d] [1] [h] [iii]). Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s argument that it was an improper party, the letter allegedly constituting such evidence shows that the NOVs were issued prior to petitioner being terminated from the construction project. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, Saxe and Moskowitz, 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 March 8, 2012, which, inter alia, granted the petition to set aside respondent’s denial of petitioner’s requests to vacate default judgments on the first and second notices of violation (NOVs), and granted hearings on the violations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

The record demonstrates that the subject NOVs were properly served on petitioner pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b), and petitioner defaulted on both NOV hearing dates. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled the requirements set forth in 48 RC3SÍY 3-82 (c), inasmuch as it failed to request a new hearing within one year of the time it learned of the existence of the violations. Petitioner also failed to request a stay of entry of the default judgments for “good cause shown” within 30 days of respondent mailing the notices of default (NY City Charter § 1049-a [d] [1] [h] [iii]). Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s argument that it was an improper party, the letter allegedly constituting such evidence shows that the NOVs were issued prior to petitioner being terminated from the construction project. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, Saxe and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 421, 979 N.Y.S.2d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-rail-construction-inc-v-environmental-control-board-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack