From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of James v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 2001
281 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued February 16, 2001.

March 26, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Brian Wing, Commissioner of New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which denied the petitioner's request for reimbursement for certain transportation expenses she incurred in the care of foster children, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), entered August 25, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Barbara James, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Mark Gimpel and Ann P. Zybert of counsel), pro se, and for respondent Brian Wing, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondents Nicholas Scoppetta, and Administration for Childrens' Services.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 217 provides that "a proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner". A determination is considered to be final and binding for CPLR 217 purposes when it has an impact upon the petitioner and when he or she knows that he or she is aggrieved (see, Edmead v. McGuire, 67 N.Y.2d 714, 716; Matter of Feldman v. Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 700; Matter of Metropolitan Package Store Assn. v. Duffy, 143 A.D.2d 832). The petitioner did not commence this proceeding until eight months after receiving notice that she was aggrieved. Accordingly, the petition was time-barred (see, Matter of Clark v. Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 216 A.D.2d 464).


Summaries of

Matter of James v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 26, 2001
281 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of James v. Wing

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA JAMES, APPELLANT, v. BRIAN WING, ETC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 181

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Miller v. Brownstein

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing this proceeding as…

Avellini v. Beloten

Only with the passage of time did petitioner realize that the temporary suspension was a de facto final…