From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Treadway v. Town Bd. of Town of Ticonderoga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 5, 1990
163 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 5, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Essex County (Viscardi, J.).


Plaintiff seeks judgment declaring Bear Pond Road in the Town of Ticonderoga, Essex County, to be a public road and directing defendants Town Board of the Town of Ticonderoga and the town's Highway Superintendent to open the road for general use and to operate, maintain and repair it as part of the town's highway system. The remaining defendants in this suit are members of a club which has leased property adjoining the road for hunting purposes and which has placed a gate across the road barring free use thereof. The Town Board and the Highway Superintendent (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) moved to, inter alia, dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations in that plaintiff's lawsuit was commenced more than four months after defendants' denial of plaintiff's request to open Bear Pond Road. Defendants contend that this case is actually a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus styled as a declaratory judgment action and therefore is subject to a four-month Statute of Limitations which should be calculated from October 22, 1987, the date on which the town's counsel advised the Town Board and plaintiff that Bear Pond Road was not a town road. Plaintiff's service of a summons and complaint on March 15, 1987 was, it is urged, beyond the statutory four-month limit. Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and this appeal by defendants ensued.

An affirmance is indicated. Assuming, arguendo, that the four-month limitation period applies to this case, we cannot concur with defendants' contention that the Statute of Limitations began to run on October 22, 1987, the date on which the town's counsel rendered his opinion to the Town Board. The right to commence a suit would run from the time that the Town Board made a final binding determination denying plaintiff's request to open Bear Pond Road (see, Matter of Connell v. Town Bd., 113 A.D.2d 359, affd 67 N.Y.2d 896). However, the letter of the town's counsel to the Town Board, a copy of which was sent to plaintiff, does not constitute a binding determination of the Town Board. The town's counsel is not an elected town official. Thus, his letter to the Town Board and to plaintiff did not constitute an official action of the Town Board.

Plaintiff was advised at the Town Board meeting of November 12, 1987 that the opinion of counsel was accepted by the Town Board as its decision. Although there has never been an official resolution of the Town Board declaring that Bear Pond Road was not a public road, the November 12, 1987 meeting appears to have finally determined the issue. Plaintiff was by then aware that his request was rejected. Any ambiguity as to when the statutory period began to run is to be resolved against the Town Board in determining the question of whether the matter was timely commenced (see, Matter of Fischer v. Roche, 81 A.D.2d 541, affd 54 N.Y.2d 962). Taking November 12, 1987 as the operative date, the four-month Statute of Limitations expired on March 13, 1988. Plaintiff mailed a summons and complaint to the County Sheriff on March 8, 1988 pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) (5), which extended service by 60 days. The summons and complaint were received on March 11, 1988 and actual service was made by the Sheriff on March 15, 1988. Service was thus timely.

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J.P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Treadway v. Town Bd. of Town of Ticonderoga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 5, 1990
163 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Treadway v. Town Bd. of Town of Ticonderoga

Case Details

Full title:JAMES TREADWAY, Respondent, v. TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TICONDEROGA et…

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

Date published: Jul 5, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
558 N.Y.S.2d 686

Citing Cases

Sutton v. Yates County

Additionally, there was ambiguity about any impact on petitioners because the chairman of the Yates County…

Lettko v. New York State Department of Health

Accordingly, this issue largely is of historical interest only except in those few remaining cases such as…