Cardiff v. Carrier
| Decision Date | 30 December 2010 |
| Citation | 79 A.D.3d 1626,913 N.Y.S.2d 618 |
| Parties | Donald CARDIFF, Diana Cardiff, Patricia A. Morse, Alberta M. Rossi, Douglas Singleton, Jan Singleton, Richard Trificana, Martha Trificana, Ellen Sue Sestito, and Gloria Izzo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert M. CARRIER, Individually and as Officer/Agent of Legend Developers, LLC, et al., Defendants, Vito Piemonte, Individually and as Officer/Agent of Town of Lee, and his Agents/Servants/Designees Employed in Codes Enforcement Office and Town of Lee, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered March 15, 2010. The order, among other things, granted the motion of defendants Vito Piemonte and Town of Lee to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints.
The Longeretta Law Firm, Utica (Simone M. Shaheen of Counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Shantz & Belkin, Latham (Todd C. Roberts of Counsel), for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiffs commenced actions that were thereafter consolidated alleging, inter alia, that the Town of Lee and its Code Enforcement Officer, individually and in his official capacity (collectively, defendants), negligently issued certificates of occupancy and that plaintiffs reasonably relied on those certificates in purchasing their respective residences. The actions were commenced in December 2008, more than one year and 90 days after each plaintiff's certificate of occupancy was issued. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants to dismiss the consolidated actions against them as time-barred, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-i. The dates on which the respective certificates of occupancy were issued "is the event from which [each] claim against defendants arose," and it is undisputed that plaintiffs failed to commence their actions within one year and 90 days after their claims arose ( Francis v. Posa, 21 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 801 N.Y.S.2d 857). "[C]ourts have uniformly concluded that the limitation period begins to run upon the happening of the event, irrespective of when the action accrued ... [T]he plain language of the statute[, i.e., General Municipal Law § 50-i,] admits of no other interpretation"( Klein v. City of Yonkers, 53 N.Y.2d 1011, 1013, 442 N.Y.S.2d 477, 425 N.E.2d 865). Also contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the court properly granted that part of defendants' motion with respect to the Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manon v. Pons
...official duties." Francis v. Posa, 21 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 801 N.Y.S.2d 857 (4th Dep't 2005) ; see also Cardiff v. Carrier, 79 A.D.3d 1626, 1627, 913 N.Y.S.2d 618 (4th Dep't 2010) ; Sandpebble Builders, 90 A.D.3d at 889, 936 N.Y.S.2d 215 (affirming dismissal of a claim against an officer in h......
-
Burbar v. Inc.
...relate to actions taken within the scope of their official duties, individual capacity claims cannot stand. Cardiff v. Carrier, 79 A.D.3d 1626, 1627, 913 N.Y.S.2d 618 (4th Dept.2010) (“[T]he court properly granted that part of defendants' motion with respect to the Code Enforcement Officer ......
-
Broyles v. Town of Evans
...90 days "after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based" (General Municipal Law § 50–i[1] ; see Cardiff v. Carrier, 79 A.D.3d 1626, 1626–1627, 913 N.Y.S.2d 618, lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 710, 2011 WL 1584648 ; Ruggiero v. Phillips, 292 A.D.2d 41, 43, 739 N.Y.S.2d 797 ; see also Kl......
-
Royal Daycare Ctr., LLC v. PB 2180 Pitkin Ave, LLC, 2018–10127, 2018–14805
...issuance of the permits in 2015 (see Klein v. City of Yonkers, 53 N.Y.2d 1011, 442 N.Y.S.2d 477, 425 N.E.2d 865 ; Cardiff v. Carrier, 79 A.D.3d 1626, 1626, 913 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; Francis v. Posa, 21 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 801 N.Y.S.2d 857 ; Merritt v. Hooshang Constr., 216 A.D.2d 542, 543, 628 N.Y.......