From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sanders v. Coddington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1999
262 A.D.2d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 10, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


With the original determination of respondent denying petitioner's FOIL request, petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies triggering the four-month Statute of Limitations within which to seek judicial review ( see, CPLR 217; see, Matter of Van Steenburg v. Thomas, 242 A.D.2d 802, 803, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 803). Since the instant proceeding was commenced more than four months from the original determination, it was properly dismissed by Supreme Court as untimely. In any event, petitioner's FOIL request lacks merit since he, inter alia, failed to provide sufficient identifying information for the requested items to be located.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Sanders v. Coddington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1999
262 A.D.2d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Sanders v. Coddington

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JERRY SANDERS, Appellant, v. PETER D. CODDINGTON et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 104 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 441

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. Andrews

Therefore, an Article 78 petition is untimely if it is filed more than four months after the ten-day period…

In re Brathwaite v. N.Y.C. P.D.

In this case, as respondents argue, the March 20, 2007 administrative determination was final and binding…