From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rembar v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1993
191 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 8, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In determining the applicable period of limitations for a declaratory judgment action, the court is to consider whether "the underlying dispute can be or could have been resolved through a form of action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily provided," which period would then govern the declaratory judgment action (Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 N.Y.2d 193, 202; Koeppel v Wachtler, 141 A.D.2d 613, 615). It is clear that the action at bar is essentially one wherein the plaintiff is challenging the issuance by the Village's zoning board of a special permit to the defendants. The proper procedural vehicle to make this challenge was a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, governed in this instance by a 30-day Statute of Limitations (see, Village Law § 7-712). Since the action was not commenced within that period, it was properly dismissed. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rembar v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 1993
191 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Rembar v. Rose

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES REMBAR, Appellant, v. DANIEL ROSE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 8, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
594 N.Y.S.2d 353

Citing Cases

Merrill v. Friends Academy

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that…

Matter of Bauman v. Village of Hamilton

To the extent that the petition can be read as asserting constitutional claims, we note that the latter are…