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: Mary P. MITCHELL, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review certain assessments on the petitioner's property pursuant to Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 17-151, the City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated November 24, 2003, which granted the petition and vacated the assessments.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
As set forth in the answer to the petition, it is undisputed that the City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (hereinafter the DOH) sent invoices to the petitioner on or before January 30, 2001, for cleaning and exterminating services it performed on her premises in order to abate a nuisance. The petitioner never denied receipt of these invoices, and her submissions to the court acknowledged that she was aware of these charges. Accordingly, her commencement of this proceeding on or about March 28, 2003, challenging the propriety of those charges was untimely (see CPLR 217; Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 489, 554 N.Y.S.2d 153; see generally Matter of Giordano v. City of New York Dept. of Fin., 253 A.D.2d 432, 675 N.Y.S.2d 897; Matter of 105th St. Dev. Corp. v. Commissioner of Dept. of Health, 189 Misc.2d 342, 345, 730 N.Y.S.2d 420). Moreover, the petitioner's subsequent correspondence with the DOH and her receipt of additional documents from it regarding the work performed did not serve to toll or revive the limitations period (see Matter of M & D Contrs. v. New York City Dept. of Health, 233 A.D.2d 230, 231, 649 N.Y.S.2d 712; Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v. City of New York, supra at 491, 554 N.Y.S.2d 153). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the proceeding as time-barred.
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.
Decided: November 14, 2005
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)