From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Musilli v. N.Y. Po. F. Dep. Sys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 23, 1998
249 A.D.2d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Kane, J.).


Claiming to have suffered a disabling injury as a result of his firefighting activities, petitioner applied to respondent New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System for performance of duty disability retirement benefits ( see, Retirement and Social Security Law § 363 [c]). By letter dated February 4, 1997, petitioner's attorney was notified that respondent Comptroller denied the application. The letter further advised the attorney of petitioner's right to challenge the determination within four months. By a separate letter dated February 19, 1997, addressed to petitioner personally, petitioner was advised of the Comptroller's denial of his application and that he had "four months from the date of this letter to commence a proceeding" (emphasis supplied).

The sole issue on this appeal is the propriety of Supreme Court's judgment dismissing the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding, which was commenced on June 18, 1997, as time barred. Since petitioner commenced this proceeding within four months of the February 19, 1997 letter, Supreme Court erred in granting respondents' motion to dismiss the petition as untimely ( see, CPLR 217). Any ambiguity or uncertainty created by a public body concerning when a determination becomes "final and binding" (CPLR 217) should be resolved against that body ( see, e.g., Mundy v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 44 N.Y.2d 352, 357; Matter of Castaways Motel v. Schuyler, 24 N.Y.2d 120, 126-127). While the initial letter to petitioner's attorney was clearly a "final and binding" determination within the meaning of CPLR 217, the second letter, which was dated 15 days later and affirmatively represented that petitioner had four months from that date to commence a proceeding challenging the Comptroller's determination, created an ambiguity as to when the Statute of Limitations began to run.

Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.


Summaries of

Matter of Musilli v. N.Y. Po. F. Dep. Sys

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 23, 1998
249 A.D.2d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Musilli v. N.Y. Po. F. Dep. Sys

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RICHARD MUSILLI, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL…

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

Date published: Apr 23, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 151

Citing Cases

Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls

We reject the contention of intervenors and the Town and Town Board, however, that the second proceeding was…

Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls

We reject the contention of intervenors and the Town and Town Board, however, that the second proceeding was…