Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985

Quogue Associates v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 12, 1985

112 A.D.2d 999; 492 N.Y.S.2d 808; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52209

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Macaluso v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (District Court, E.D. New York 1986)
Conciatori v. Office of Secretary of State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Standifer v. Goord (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Schachter v. Sobol (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Esseks v. Government Employees Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Town of Clarkstown v. Howe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Albrecht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Russo v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Keogh v. New York State Department of Health (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Russell v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated October 7, 1983, denying petitioner’s application for a permit to construct a single-family house on protected tidal wetlands, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 8, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner timely served the Attorney-General with the *1000notice of petition and petition in this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7804 (c), but failed to timely serve respondent. The Attorney-General is not a party to this proceeding, but rather the prospective attorney for a party. Thus, petitioner’s timely service upon the Attorney-General did not toll the statutory period of limitations and allow for untimely service of the notice of petition and petition upon the respondent (see, Matter of Cohen v State Tax Commn., 51 AD2d 79; Matter of Upstate Milk Coops, v State of New York Dept. of Agrie. & Mkts, 101 AD2d 940). Mangano, J. P., Brown, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.