You are here: / / THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITIONS WERE TIMELY FILED; THE CORRECT APPLICATION...
, ,

THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITIONS WERE TIMELY FILED; THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the juvenile delinquency petitions were timely fifed because of the COVOD toll imposed by the Executive Orders:

By Executive Order No. 8.202.8, issued on March 20, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the “time limit[s] for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state” were “tolled” … . “A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period” … . However, a suspension “simply delays expiration of the time period until the end date of the suspension” … . By its plain terms, Executive Order 8.202.8 tolled the statute of limitations … , until that order and subsequent Executive Orders extending the tolling period were rescinded by Executive Order 8.210, issued on June 24, 2021 and effective the next day … .

Since the period of the toll must be excluded from the calculation of the filing deadline … , the juvenile delinquency petitions were timely filed on July 2,2021. Respondent allegedly committed his first unlawful act on December 21, 2019. Normally, the filing deadline for the petitions would have been respondent’s 18th birthday — June 7, 2021, which was 534 days after he allegedly committed the first act. When the first executive order took effect on March 20, 2020, there were 444 days remaining before respondent’s 18th birthday. By adding 444 days to June 24, 2021, when the executive order’s tolling provisions were terminated, the Agency’s deadline for filing the petitions was August 25, 2022. Here, the Agency refiled and served the second set of petitions on July 2, 2021, only eight days after the executive orders were rescinded.

The order rescinding the prior Executive Orders meant that the statute of limitations would start running again, “picking up where it left off” … . We also note that Family Court’s narrow interpretation of the Executive Order would deprive respondent of the benefits of Family Court intervention … . Matter of Isaiah H., 2023 NY Slip Op 01587, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the COVID toll of the statute of limitations rendered the filing of the juvenile delinquency petitions timely. The correct application of the toll was explained.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS MED MAL CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
BROWN PAPER ON TOP OF GREEN DUST ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED A SLIPPERY CONDITION ON THE FLOOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Teacher’s Unsatisfactory Performance Evaluation Annulled—No Supporting Documentation
A Counteroffer Extinguishes the Initial Offer Which Cannot Be Unilaterally Revived by Subsequent Acceptance
A SETTLEMENT EMAIL WILL BE DEEMED SIGNED BY THE SENDING ATTORNEY WITHOUT RETYPING THE ATTORNEY’S NAME IN THE EMAIL (FIRST DEPT).
AT SENTENCING THE PROSECUTOR REFERENCED EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENTENCE REPORT BUT, WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, NEITHER DEFENDANT NOR DEFENSE COUNSEL ADDRESSED THE ISSUE; NOTWITHSTANDING THE SILENCE OF THE DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO WHETHER THE GUILTY PLEA WAS KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY; THERE WAS NO NEED TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
MOTHER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE RIGHTS HER SON WAS GIVING UP BY ADMITTING TO THE OFFENSE IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, NEW FACT-FINDING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (FIRST 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

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN... A MUTUAL MISTAKE IN AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PRICE OF SHARES OF STOCK WARRANTED...