You are here: / / IN THIS COMBINED ARTICLE 78 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE FOUR-MONTH...

IN THIS COMBINED ARTICLE 78 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ARTICLE 78 DID NOT APPLY TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WHICH ONLY INVOLVED PRIVATE PARTIES, NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY OR OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that the declaratory judgment action was not subject to the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 actions. The plaintiff and defendant are private parties who own land on opposite sides of Cady Road. A portion of the Cady Road was declared discontinued and defendant allegedly erected a barrier. Plaintiff’s action sought Article 78 relief against a town official as well as a declaratory judgment. Because no Article 78 relief was possible with respect to the private defendant who allegedly erected the barrier, the shorter statute of limitations did not apply to the declaratory judgment action concerning the rights of the private parties:

Relief under CPLR article 78 is available only against a limited subset of official and institutional parties. It follows that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to article 78 proceedings cannot be imported to bar a declaratory judgment action against a private individual not subject to article 78. * * *

… [D]efendant is not a “body or officer” within the meaning of CPLR 7802 (a), i.e., he is not a “court, tribunal, board, corporation, [or] officer,” and it is well established that article 78 relief is available only against a “body or officer” as defined by section 7802 (a) … . …

… [T]he true gravamen of its declaratory claims “requires a judicial determination as to the rights of the parties to use Cady Road [which] would [thereby] settle the rights of private [parties],” i.e., plaintiff and defendant. And it is well established that such a contest between the “rights of private [parties]” cannot be adjudicated in an article 78 proceeding … . …

… [B]ecause an article 78 proceeding was not a “proper vehicle” for plaintiff’s private claims for declaratory relief against defendant, the four-month “limitations period set forth in CPLR 217 [1] is not applicable to [such claims] and the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (1) applies instead” … . Matter of Grocholski Cady Rd., LLC v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 01966, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

You might also like
Knowledge of the Health Issue Underlying Plaintiff’s Claim, and Knowledge of Another Similar Claim, Was Not Enough to Provide Defendant with Notice of Plaintiff’s Claim/Request to File Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Granted
DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Question of Fact About Whether Private Entity Managing Public Funds Can Recoup Payments Which Were Above Minimum Fees Required by the Medicare Fee Schedule
MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BASED UPON RECANTING TESTIMONY PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, WEAKNESS OF RECANTING TESTIMONY EMPHASIZED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT INSTALLED SOFTWARE ON PETITIONER’S COMPUTER ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO CONTROL THE COMPUTER REMOTELY, AND ALLEGATIONS RESPONDENT MADE PHONE CALLS TO PETITIONER INTENDED TO BE THREATENING, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE FAMILY OFFENSES OF HARASSMENT AND STALKING (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSAULT VICTIM 12 TO 15 MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
“Case Management Fee” Imposed Upon Property Owners Who Do Not Correct a Code Violation Within One Year Is an Unconstitutional Penalty Which Requires Due Process Protections
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).

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

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL, MADE ONE DAY LATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE DENIAL... SENTENCING COURT DID NOT MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF...