From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casement v. Town of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 1990
162 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

June 25, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 413; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v. Walkley, 38 N.Y.2d 6, 9), and that the action is barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 217 (see, Press v County of Monroe, 50 N.Y.2d 695; Solnick v. Whalen, 49 N.Y.2d 224; International Paper Co. v. Sterling Forest Pollution Control Corp., 105 A.D.2d 278; cf., Stettine v. County of Suffolk, 105 A.D.2d 109).

In view of our determination the plaintiffs' remaining contentions are rendered academic. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Casement v. Town of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 1990
162 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Casement v. Town of Poughkeepsie

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS H. CASEMENT et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 25, 1990

Citations

162 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
557 N.Y.S.2d 99

Citing Cases

LaManna v. Carrigan

On face, Schepmoes v. Hilles, 122 A.D.2d 35, 504 N.Y.S.2d 196 (2d Dep't 1986), is one such decision.…