You are here: / / IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING WHICH IS TRIGGERED BY A DEMAND BY PETITIONER,...

IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING WHICH IS TRIGGERED BY A DEMAND BY PETITIONER, AN UNREASONABLE DELAY IN MAKING THE DEMAND WILL RENDER THE PROCEEDING TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding was time-barred because petitioner unreasonably delayed making the demand which triggered the four-month statute of limitations (laches):

“[W]here, as here, the proceeding is in the nature of mandamus to compel, it ‘must be commenced within four months after refusal by respondent, upon demand of petitioner, to perform its duty’ ” … . ” ‘[A] petitioner[, however,] may not delay in making a demand in order to indefinitely postpone the time within which to institute the proceeding. The petitioner must make his or her demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs, or after the petitioner knows or should know of the facts which give him or her a clear right to relief, or else, the petitioner’s claim can be barred by the doctrine of laches’ ” … . “The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” … . Inasmuch as “[t]he problem . . . is one of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations[,] . . . it is immaterial whether or not the delay cause[s] any prejudice to the respondent” … . “[T]he four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been ‘treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand’ ” … . Matter of Cor Van Rensselaer St. Co. III, Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05867, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Where a mandamus proceeding is triggered by a demand by petitioner, an unreasonable delay in making the demand will render the proceeding time-barred.

 

You might also like
APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND MATTER SENT BACK FOR FACTUAL FINDINGS IN THIS CUSTODY CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT MEET FACE TO FACE WITH DEFENDANT BEFORE THREE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WERE MISSED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AIMED AT AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A MEMO IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE ISSUE WAS PRESERVED, THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER HEARING GUN SHOTS DID NOT HAVE THE REASONABLE SUSPICION NEEDED FOR THE SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION STARTED ANEW WHEN DEFENDANT MADE A PARTIAL PAYMENT; DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT THE TIME OF THE STREET STOP; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL.
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE OFFICER WHO CONVINCED DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT... PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY HAD REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IN A MATTER...