New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- Citation
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- Parent Document
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-05-05
Other Sections in This Document (23)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Pretto, 8 Misc. 3d 708 (2005)
Full Text
650 chars*711The petitioner argues that the one-year statute of limitations under CPLR 215 (4) was intended to be utilized in forfeiture proceedings involving property obtained from the proceeds of a crime. Since the tenant’s occupancy in the premises does not arise as the result of the proceeds from a crime, she may not rely on the one-year statute of limitations. This argument bears little weight. First, the petitioner provides no statute or precedent to support this contention. Moreover, because this case clearly involves a forfeiture, there is no reason why CPLR 215 was solely intended to cover forfeiture proceedings brought under CPLR article 13.