You are here: / / FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S...

FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED.

The Second Department determined the four-month statute of limitations for bringing an Article 78 action starts when petitioner’s attorney is notified of the challenged determination, not when the petitioner is notified:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the four-month statute of limitations did not begin to run when the petitioner was personally served with a copy of the respondents’ letter notifying him that his employment had been terminated. At that time, the respondents were on notice that the petitioner had retained counsel to represent him in connection with the disciplinary charges. ” [B]asic procedural dictates and . . . fundamental policy considerations . . . require that once counsel has appeared in a matter a Statute of Limitations or time requirement cannot begin to run unless that counsel is served with the determination or the order or judgment sought to be reviewed'” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the respondents were required to serve a copy of the letter on the petitioner’s counsel in order for the statute of limitations to commence running … . Matter of Munroe v Ponte, 2017 NY Slip Op 02041, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (ARTICLE 78, FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED)/ARTICLE 78 (FOUR-MONTH ARTICLE 78 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS WHEN THE PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY IS NOTIFIED OF THE CHALLENGED DETERMINATION, NOT WHEN PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED)

You might also like
EXTRINSIC COLLATERAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO IMPEACH DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S CREDIBILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $400,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; THE TIRE ALLEGEDLY FAILED LEADING TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA; DRIVER SUED US TIRES; US TIRES SUED GOODYEAR AND FORD, BOTH OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS, SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION; NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER GOODYEAR AND FORD IN THE US TIRES SUIT (SECOND DEPT). ​
NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAYGROUND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING MATERIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS DO NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED.
THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR THE FIRE DAMAGE DESPITE THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS (SECOND DEPT).
UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ROBBERY AND BURGLARY FIRST CONVICTIONS REDUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE... GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO...