§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Viola Dial, Respondent,v.John Rhea,, Appellant, 690 Gates, LP, Respondent.

Brief

29 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Yungkau

    329 U.S. 482 (1947)   Cited 239 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that dismissal in this circumstance is "mandatory"

  2. Matter of Biondo v. New York State Board of Parole

    60 N.Y.2d 832 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 219 times
    In Biondo v. New York State Board of Parole, 458 N.E.2d 371 (N.Y. 1983), which theCarter court cited, but did not discuss or explicitly overrule, the Court of Appeals rejected a lower court holding that "the running of the statutory period beg[ins] to run immediately upon the issuance of the determination" being challenged.

  3. ABB Industrial Systems, Inc. v. Prime Technology, Inc.

    120 F.3d 351 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 140 times
    Holding that prior owners are not liable for the gradual spread of contamination underground

  4. Matter of Carter v. State

    95 N.Y.2d 267 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 122 times

    Argued September 7, 2000. Decided October 17, 2000. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered December 2, 1999, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (James B. Canfield, J.), entered in Albany County in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granting a motion by respondent to dismiss the petition as time barred. Matter of Carter v. State of N.Y., Executive Dept., Div. of Parole

  5. Council of Teachers v. Boces

    63 N.Y.2d 100 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 163 times

    Decided September 20, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Bernard McCaffrey, J. Stanley A. Immerman for appellant. Seymour H. Kligler for Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County, respondent. MEYER, J. When the respondent in an article 78 proceeding challenges petitioner's standing only, it is error to dismiss the petition on the merits prior to service of respondent's answer. The mandate of CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) that, "If

  6. Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

    975 F. Supp. 317 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 74 times
    Finding that plaintiffs achieved more than limited success even though the consent judgments were not identical to what was originally sought by plaintiffs

  7. Funk v. Barry

    89 N.Y.2d 364 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 75 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Funk v Barry (89 NY2d 364), the Court of Appeals distinguished between orders/judgments that are directed to be "submitted" from those that are to be "settled".

  8. Mundy v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission

    44 N.Y.2d 352 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 117 times
    In Mundy, the Nassau County Civil Service Commission certified an eligible list for permanent employment with the Nassau County Probation Department on January 7, 1975.

  9. Matter of Castaways Motel v. Schuyler

    24 N.Y.2d 120 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 139 times
    In Matter of Castaways Motel v. Schuyler (24 N.Y.2d 120, 126-127), the Court of Appeals stated, with regard to a Statute of Limitations defense asserted by a public body or officer: "The burden was put on the public body to make it clear what was or what was not its determination.

  10. Matter of ISCA Enters. v. City of New York

    77 N.Y.2d 688 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 61 times
    In Campbell v. City of New York (77 N.Y.2d 688, 699, cert denied sub nom. ISCA Enters. v. City of New York, 503 U.S. 906), the Court of Appeals held, in a similar context, that "a challenge to the constitutionality of a notice provision, where the party had no timely notice, is not barred by the Statute of Limitations".

  11. Section 5513 - Time to take appeal, cross-appeal or move for permission to appeal

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5513   Cited 3,119 times
    Establishing thirty-day deadline for appeal

  12. Section 202.48 - Submission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 202.48   Cited 413 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted. (b) Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown. (c) (1) When settlement of an order or judgment