Legal Opinion
Johns v. Rampe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 22, 2005PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*284Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), entered August 24, 2004, which dismissed the proceeding as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the timeliness of the proceeding is governed by the one-year-and-90-day limitations period in Urban Development Corporation Act ([UDCA] L 1968, ch 174, § 1) § 31-a (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 6281-a), not the four-month limitations period in CPLR 217 (1). By its terms, UDCA § 31-a applies to an action in tort, not a proceeding in the nature of mandamus, clearly the case here…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- New York State Ass'n of Counties v. AxelrodNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Edmead v. McGuireNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- 90-92 Wadsworth Avenue Tenants Ass'n v. City of New York Department of Housing Preservation & DevelopmentAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- GFI-Genfare v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
3Cited by4 opinions
- Johns v. RAMPEDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2007
- Johns v. RampeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Johns v. RampeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Mango v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006