From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Miller v. McGough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1983
97 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

October 3, 1983


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Water Resources, which allegedly assessed excess water charges on petitioners' property, the commissioner appeals (by permission) from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rubin, J.), dated April 11, 1983, which, inter alia, directed him to conduct a hearing as to the accuracy of the water charges. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and proceeding dismissed. The determination of petitioners' water bill became final and binding upon their receipt of the water bill on or about June 25, 1982. Consequently, the instant proceeding to review that determination, which was not commenced until December, 1982, in excess of the four-month period of limitation, was untimely. (See CPLR 217; Lenihan v City of New York, 85 A.D.2d 562; Matter of Davis v Westchester County Personnel Off., 75 A.D.2d 600.) Petitioners' filing of a notice of claim was at best a plea for reconsideration, which neither tolled the Statute of Limitations nor began anew the time within which review could be sought. (Cf. Matter of Trivedi v State Bd. of Law Examiners, 86 A.D.2d 719; Matter of Qualey v Shang, 70 A.D.2d 619, 621.) Weinstein, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Miller v. McGough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1983
97 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Matter of Miller v. McGough

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALON MILLER et al., Respondents, v. JOSEPH McGOUGH, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 3, 1983

Citations

97 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Kyu Chang Yoon v. City of New York

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs. The instant action is time-barred ( see, 45435…

Stewart v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, the limitations period did not begin to run on the date of the General…