Legal Opinion
Saunders v. Rhea
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 28, 2012PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*603The article 78 petition was untimely under CPLR 217 (1), which provides a four-month limitation period for review of administrative determinations. Petitioner’s later correspondence with NYCHA, which was denominated a motion to vacate the settlement stipulation into which petitioner had entered with NYCHA, did not extend or toll her time to initiate an article 78 proceeding (see Matter of M & D Contrs. v New York City Dept. of Health, 233 AD2d 230, 231 [1996].
The dissent’s reliance on Matter of Yarbough v Franco (95 NY2d 342 [2000]) is misplaced. Yarbough dealt with a motion to vacate a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- MATTER OF YARBOUGH v. FrancoNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- M & D Contractors v. New York City Department of HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
3Cited by3 opinions
- Matter of Tayinha Banos v. John Rhea / Matter of Viola Dial v. John RheaNew York Court of Appeals · 2015
- Matter of Lewis v. New York City Hous. Auth.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Matter of Tayinha Banos v. John Rhea / Matter of Viola Dial v. John RheaNew York Court of Appeals · 2015