Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of Rosalind STEPHENS, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered September 6, 2001, which, in an article 78 proceeding to annul respondent's determination terminating petitioner's public housing tenancy, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The proceeding was properly dismissed as time-barred on the ground that it was not commenced within four months of petitioner's receipt of either (1) respondent's “Determination of Status for Continued Occupancy,” dated February 23, 2000, notifying petitioner that respondent, “in compliance with the Decision and Disposition made by the Hearing Officer, has determined that the Tenant is ineligible for continued occupancy on the grounds of Chronic Delinquency In The Payment of Rent,” or (2) respondent's “Notice to Vacate,” dated April 13, 2000, notifying petitioner that respondent had elected to terminate her tenancy as of May 31, 2000 (CPLR 217[1] ). The proceeding is not saved by petitioner's alleged non-receipt of the Hearing Officer's decision and disposition, which, under respondent's rules, was subject to review by respondent's Board, and thus was not a final and binding determination that could have any effect on the running of the Statute of Limitations (see, Matter of Edmead v. McGuire, 67 N.Y.2d 714, 499 N.Y.S.2d 934, 490 N.E.2d 853; Matter of Carter v. State of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 267, 716 N.Y.S.2d 364, 739 N.E.2d 730).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 11, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)