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
1,112 charsNo excuse has been offered by the respondent for the more than two-year delay in bringing this action. The petitioner offers no excuse for failing to commence the action within five days after notice was provided by the District Attorney’s Office. The petitioner argues that, if this court is to apply a statue of limitations under CPLR 215 (4), then the three-year period should apply, because this action has in actuality been commenced by the District Attorney. The court rejects this argument. Having failed to timely commence the action, even after being notified by the District Attorney’s Office (petitioner waited more than one year to commence the action), the petitioner cannot seek to revive its case by arguing that it stands in the shoes of the District Attorney’s Office. The statute contemplates a three-year period for the District Attorney to bring suit where the party empowered to sue fails to commence an action within one year. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of a three-year statutory period where the statute explicitly provides for an action to be commenced within one year.