Ziman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ziman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal

235 A.D.2d 369, 653 N.Y.S.2d 17

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 369 (Ziman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal) 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

Ziman v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 235 A.D.2d 369, 653 N.Y.S.2d 17 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered May 10, 1995, which, inter alia, declared that plaintiffs’ due process rights were not violated, and order, Court of Claims (Louis Benza, J.), entered on or about May 17, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendant State of New York’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing appellants’ claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since appellants did not meet the literal requirements of Court of Claims Act § 10 (1), the Court of Claims properly found that their action was not timely commenced and that relief under CPLR 205 (a) was not available to toll the statutory limitations period (see, Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721).

The purported delay of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal in processing appellants’ applications for hardship certificates of eviction necessitated by the passage of the Twenty Year Law (L 1984, ch 234) did not effect an unconstitutional "taking” of property since the law advanced a legitimate State interest and appellants were not denied an economically viable use of the property (see, Dawson v Higgins, 197 AD2d 127, 137-138, appeal dismissed 83 NY2d 996, cert denied sub nom. Dawson v Halperin, 513 US 1077). Nor were appellants deprived of due process by respondents’ actions, or the laws and regulations involved herein, as all bore a reasonable relationship to a valid public purpose. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered May 10, 1995, which, inter alia, declared that plaintiffs’ due process rights were not violated, and order, Court of Claims (Louis Benza, J.), entered on or about May 17, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendant State of New York’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing appellants’ claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since appellants did not meet the literal requirements of Court of Claims Act § 10 (1), the Court of Claims properly found that their action was not timely commenced and that relief under CPLR 205 (a) was not available to toll the statutory limitations period (see, Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721).

The purported delay of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal in processing appellants’ applications for hardship certificates of eviction necessitated by the passage of the Twenty Year Law (L 1984, ch 234) did not effect an unconstitutional "taking” of property since the law advanced a legitimate State interest and appellants were not denied an economically viable use of the property (see, Dawson v Higgins, 197 AD2d 127, 137-138, appeal dismissed 83 NY2d 996, cert denied sub nom. Dawson v Halperin, 513 US 1077). Nor were appellants deprived of due process by respondents’ actions, or the laws and regulations involved herein, as all bore a reasonable relationship to a valid public purpose. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 369, 653 N.Y.S.2d 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziman-v-new-york-state-division-of-housing-community-renewal-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack