From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aymes v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 20, 2007
37 A.D.3d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 273.

February 20, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered October 21, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clifford Aymes, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.


This action was properly dismissed as untimely. Plaintiffs challenges to the liens on property he purchased were premised fundamentally on the manner in which the liens were imposed, thus constituting challenges to administrative determinations; accordingly, they should have been brought under CPLR article 78 ( Todras v City of New York, 11 AD3d 383). Inasmuch as plaintiff had notice of the liens when he purchased the property in August 2003, the action he commenced in 2005 was well beyond the applicable four-month statute of limitations for article 78 proceedings ( see Hill v Giuliani, 272 AD2d 157).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Aymes v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 20, 2007
37 A.D.3d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Aymes v. NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Case Details

Full title:CLIFFORD AYMES, Appellant, v. NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION…

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

Date published: Feb 20, 2007

Citations

37 A.D.3d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1404
829 N.Y.S.2d 530

Citing Cases

Warner v. N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

Respondent Mayflower Development never appealed this rescission order. E.g., Best Payphones v. Department of…

Marenus v. Teachers' Ret. Sys. of N.Y.

Rather, the court must examine the substance of the action to identify the relationship out of which the…