New York Court of Appeals, 1982

Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 12, 1982

57 N.Y.2d 853; 442 N.E.2d 58; 455 N.Y.S.2d 761; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3744

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Morris v. Reynolds (District Court, S.D. New York 2000)
City of New York v. Novello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Fraiman v. Abrams (New York Supreme Court 1989)
People v. Lurie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Gray v. Wing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Janus Petroleum, Inc. v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Centennial Restorations Co. v. Abrams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Ansonia Tenants' Coalition, Inc. v. Ansonia Associates (New York Supreme Court 1991)
People v. Logston (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)
88 Associates v. Abrams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Newler v. Abrams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Figueroa v. Market Training Institute, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
2647 Realty Co. v. Abrams (New York Supreme Court 1988)
421 Hudson Street Tenants Ass'n v. Abrams (New York Supreme Court 1988)
Matter of Waldbaum's 122, Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of the City of Mount Vernon (N.Y. 1983)
Gonkjur Associates v. Abrams (N.Y. 1983)
King v. Carey (N.Y. 1982)
Soybel v. Abrams (N.Y. 1982)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Max Bloom. Because the order appealed from finally determined the proceeding, we do not answer the certified question (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], pp 357-358).

*856We have not previously passed upon the construction of a statute requiring, as did subdivision 2 of section 352-e of the General Business Law, at the time here relevant, that a public official act “not later than thirty days after * * * filing.” We add to Justice Bloom’s decision, therefore, that although the phrase “not later than” may, when viewed against the remedial objectives of the statute in which the phrase appears, be construed to be directory only (Usery v Whitin Mach. Works, 554 F2d 498, 501-502; United States v Morris, 252 F2d 643, 648-649), where, as here, the Attorney-General is not foreclosed by filing from further action protective of the public interests and the purpose of the time limitation is to protect the property owner against unreasonable delay, the statute is properly construed to be mandatory, rather than directory (see Matter of Whalen v Lefkowitz, 36 NY2d 75, 78).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified not answered as unnecessary.

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