Parrino v. New York City Bd. of Standards & Appeals
| Decision Date | 20 December 2011 |
| Citation | 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09330,90 A.D.3d 931,934 N.Y.S.2d 813 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Rosa PARRINO, et al., appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09330
90 A.D.3d 931
934 N.Y.S.2d 813
In the Matter of Rosa PARRINO, et al., appellants,
v.
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 20, 2011.
Stephen A. Harrison, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for respondents New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, Meenakshi Srinivasan, Christopher Collins, Dara Ottley–Brown, Susan Hinkson, Eileen Montanez, and New York City Department of Buildings.
Marvin B. Mitzner, LLC, New York, N.Y., for respondent Dutch Kills Partners, LLC.
[90 A.D.3d 931] In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a resolution of the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, dated May 25, 2010, which, after a hearing, granted the application of Dutch Kills Partners, LLC, for a determination that it obtained the right to complete a proposed nine-story hotel building on its property under the common-law doctrine of vested rights and reinstated the building permit granted by the New York City Department of Buildings to Dutch Kills Partners, LLC, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered January 11, 2011, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the notice of petition and the petition, and granted the cross motion of the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, Meenakshi Srinivasan, Christopher Collins, Dara Ottley–Brown, Susan Hinkson, Eileen Montanez, and the New York City Department of Buildings, and the separate cross motion of Dutch Kills Partners, LLC, to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
It is undisputed that the petitioners failed to serve the respondents with the notice of petition and petition within the 15–day period following the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations ( see CPLR 306–b). Contrary to the petitioners' contention, they failed to demonstrate that an extension was warranted in the interest of justice ( id.; see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanyo v. Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc.
...of the City of N.Y., 128 A.D.3d 617, 618, 10 N.Y.S.3d 210 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Parrino v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 90 A.D.3d 931, 932, 934 N.Y.S.2d 813 [2d Dept. 2011] ). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, we conclude that the court properly dismissed the first and sec......
-
Lunt & Bell, LLC v. State
...personal jurisdiction was obtained over all interested parties, any future claims would be barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel [90 A.D.3d 931] ( see Matter of New York State Urban Dev. Corp. [ Niagara Venture–DiCienzo ], 63 A.D.3d 1719, 881 N.Y.S.2d 263). Moreover, as the Court of......
-
Genting N.Y., LLC v. N.Y.C. Envtl. Control Bd.
...; CPLR 403[d] ; Waggaman v. Vernon, 123 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 1 N.Y.S.3d 198 ; Matter of Parrino v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 90 A.D.3d 931, 934 N.Y.S.2d 813 ; Matter of Eldor Contr. Corp. v.Town of Islip, 277 A.D.2d 233, 234, 716 N.Y.S.2d 681 ). To the extent the petitioner now co......
-
Torres v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Standards & Appeals
...pursuant to the order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, issued on December 20, 2011 (Parrino v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, 90 A.D.3d 931, 934 N.Y.S.2d 813). Infant petitioner, by his mother, Melinda Perrino, now seeks leave to commence a new Article 78 proceed......