From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Save the Woods v. Village of New Paltz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 11, 2002
296 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

90878

July 11, 2002.

Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered October 3, 2001 in Ulster County, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted a motion by respondent Village of New Paltz Planning Board to dismiss the petition for failure to join a necessary party.

Russell A. Schindler, Kingston, for appellant-respondent.

Samoff Benton P.L.L.C., Kingston (Jay L. Samoff of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Grant Lyons L.L.P., Rhinebeck (Drayton Grant of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Petitioner commenced this proceeding to annul a negative declaration of environmental impact (see, ECL 8-0109) issued by respondent Village of New Paltz Planning Board (hereinafter the Board) regarding an application for site plan approval made by respondent Shawangunk Reserve Inc. (hereinafter Shawangunk). Based on the omission of Shawangunk as a necessary party and the expiration of the 30-day Statute of Limitations provided in Village Law § 7-725-a (11), which requires commencement of a CPLR article 78 proceeding within 30 days after the filing of the challenged decision in the Village Clerk's office, the Board moved to dismiss the petition. During the pendency of that motion, petitioner filed and served a supplemental petition naming Shawangunk as a respondent. Shawangunk then also moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the 30-day Statute of Limitations had expired before it was joined. Supreme Court granted the Board's motion, dismissed the petition and denied Shawangunk's motion as moot. Petitioner appeals, and Shawangunk cross-appeals from the denial of its motion.

Petitioner does not dispute that Shawangunk is a necessary party or that Shawangunk was joined more than 30 days after the Board's decision was filed in the Village Clerk's office. Instead, petitioner contends that Shawangunk was timely joined because its joinder was "as of right" within the time period prescribed in CPLR 1003. We cannot agree. The time period in CPLR 1003 within which joinder may be accomplished without leave of the court has no affect on any Statute of Limitations defense available to a party joined pursuant to that section (cf., Hilliard v. Roc-Newark Assocs., 287 A.D.2d 691, 692). Since the Board did not waive its Statute of Limitations defense, we find that the cited 30-day Statute of Limitations is applicable to Shawangunk.

Petitioner's reliance on our opinion in Matter of Hans v. Burns ( 48 A.D.2d 947) is misplaced. There, unlike here, the municipal respondent's failure to raise a Statute of Limitations defense resulted in denial of that defense to a nonmunicipal respondent (id., at 947-948). Supreme Court properly found Matter of Hans v. Burns (supra) to be inapposite in light of our holdings in Matter of Manupella v. Troy City Zoning Bd. of Appeals ( 272 A.D.2d 761) and Matter of O'Connell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of New Scotland ( 267 A.D.2d 742, lv denied, lv dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 938), which involved comparable 30-day limitations periods provided in Town Law § 267-c (1) and General City Law § 81-c (1), respectively. In those cases, we affirmed the dismissal of the underlying petitions for each petitioner's failure to join a necessary nonmunicipal respondent prior to the expiration of the 30-day period (see, Matter of Manupella v. Troy City Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 763-764; Matter of O'Connell v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of New Scotland, supra, at 745). Thus, we find that Supreme Court here correctly concluded that the 30-day limitations period set forth in Village Law § 7-725-a (11) is applicable to Shawangunk, and that petitioner's attempt to join Shawangunk was untimely. In light of this determination, we also find that Shawangunk's motion was properly denied as moot.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Save the Woods v. Village of New Paltz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 11, 2002
296 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Save the Woods v. Village of New Paltz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SAVE THE WOODS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATION, by JUDITH JOFFEE…

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

Date published: Jul 11, 2002

Citations

296 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
745 N.Y.S.2d 230

Citing Cases

In re Bianchi v. Town of Greece Planning

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondent's resolution granting site…

Hirsh v. Perlmutter

That a new defendant might have been added to a pending action by virtue of an amendment that was properly…