From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Cartwright v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 4, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was not commenced within the 30 days prescribed by Town Law § 267 (7) (see also, Matter of Ada's Constr. Servs. v Scheyer, 128 A.D.2d 869). The fact that the petitioners had successfully moved by order to show cause dated September 6, 1988, to extend this time period, which is clearly a Statute of Limitations (see, South Woodbury Taxpayers Assn. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 79 A.D.2d 633), is of no avail, inasmuch as the court was without the authority to grant that relief (see, CPLR 201; Matter of Sengstacken v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 A.D.2d 651).

In light of our determination, we do not address the propriety of the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals granting the intervenor's application for a width variance. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Cartwright v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1990
162 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Cartwright v. Rose

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GLENDA CARTWRIGHT et al., Appellants, v. HENRY ROSE, as…

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 395

Citing Cases

Stekolschik v. Star Crusier Transp., Inc.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion is granted and the action is dismissed. see CPLR…

Matter of Magat v. County of Rockland

The Supreme Court correctly granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the proceeding as untimely because…