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: LONG ISLAND PINE BARRENS SOCIETY, INC., et al., appellants, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents.
In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review Resolution No. 1268–2005 of the Suffolk County Legislature, which authorized the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation to enter into a license agreement with Hunter Sports Shooting Grounds, Inc., for the renovation and operation of a trap and skeet shooting range at Southaven County Park, and to annul the license agreement that arose therefrom, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated May 2, 2007, which, in effect, granted those branches of the respective motions of the County of Suffolk, Hunter Sports Shooting Grounds, Inc., and Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission which were to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against each of them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
From 1963 until 2001 the County of Suffolk operated, or leased out the operation of, a trap-and skeet-shooting range (hereinafter the Range) at Southaven County Park. According to the petitioners, the Range is located within the statutorily-designated “core preservation area” of the Long Island Pine Barrens (ECL 57–0107[11] ), an area in which land use is governed, inter alia, by article 57 of the Environmental Conservation Law. In the summer of 2001, the Suffolk County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation (hereinafter the Parks Department) shut down the Range because of health, noise, and safety violations.
Beginning in April 2002, the Suffolk County Legislature (hereinafter the County Legislature) adopted a series of resolutions concerning the Range which, among other things, appropriated funds for environmental restoration and construction at that location and directed the Parks Department to conduct a Request for Proposal (hereinafter RFP) process to retain a vendor to manage the Range. By Resolution No. 1268–2005, adopted on December 6, 2005, the County Legislature authorized the Parks Department to enter into a license agreement with Hunter Sports Shooting Grounds, Inc. (hereinafter Hunter Sports), for renovation and operation of the Range. The license agreement authorized by that resolution (hereinafter the license agreement) was executed by County officials and Hunter Sports in April 2006. On July 15, 2006, the Range reopened.
The petitioners commenced this proceeding on or about August 10, 2006. The respondents separately moved to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against each of them on a variety of grounds, including the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court, in effect, granted those branches of their respective motions which were to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, and dismissed the proceeding. We affirm, albeit on a different ground.
The petitioners' challenge to the County Legislature's authorization of the license agreement was barred by the four-month statute of limitations applicable to proceedings commenced pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see CPLR 217[1]; Matter of Platt v. Town of Southampton, 46 A.D.3d 907, 908, 848 N.Y.S.2d 702; Matter of Simon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 34 A.D.3d 823, 825 N.Y.S.2d 522). The period of limitations set forth in CPLR 217 began to run on December 6, 2005, the date the County Legislature adopted the resolution authorizing the Parks Department to enter into a license agreement with Hunter Sports to operate of the Range (see Matter of Gach v. City of Long Beach, 218 A.D.2d 801, 631 N.Y.S.2d 68). Since this proceeding was not commenced until more than four months after the resolution was adopted, the petitioners' challenge was untimely (see CPLR 217[1]; Matter of Gach v. City of Long Beach, 218 A.D.2d at 802, 631 N.Y.S.2d 68).
The petitioners' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2007-05928, 06-22354
Decided: October 07, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)