Barry v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 951

In 2005 HPD held a hearing and issued a determination granting Cadman Towers a certificate of eviction against tenants (Barry, Holub, Weinstein) for violating the Mitchell‑Lama primary residence rule.
This HPD determination was later upheld in an Article 78 proceeding (Matter of Weinstein).
In July 2012 Barry, Weinstein (individually and as Holub's administrator), and Marshal S. Weinstein sued, alleging housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other claims.
HPD moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a), asserting the claims against it were time‑barred.
The Supreme Court (Kings County) granted HPD's CPLR 3211(a)(5) motion dismissing the complaint as time‑barred (April 4, 2013) and, on reargument, adhered to that decision (Nov. 25, 2013).
Plaintiffs appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal insofar as appealed, finding plaintiffs knew of the § 1983 injuries in 2005 and did not commence suit within the applicable limitations periods.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claims against HPD are time‑barred	Plaintiffs contended tolling or other facts created a dispute of fact on accrual/limitations	HPD argued causes of action accrued by 2005 and suit filed July 2012 was untimely	Held: HPD met prima facie burden; plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of tolling or delayed accrual; dismissal affirmed
Accrual date for § 1983 claims	Plaintiffs implicitly argued accrual occurred later or was tolled	HPD argued accrual when plaintiffs knew or had reason to know of the injury (2005)	Held: § 1983 claims accrued in 2005 when plaintiffs knew of the injury
Applicable statutes of limitations	Plaintiffs disputed application or calculation of limitations	HPD noted FHA claims have a two‑year limits, § 1983 claims three years under CPLR 214	Held: Court applied the statutory limits and found suit was filed well beyond those periods
Sufficiency of plaintiff response to CPLR 3211(a)(5) showing	Plaintiffs argued they raised factual issues preventing dismissal	HPD argued plaintiffs did not present facts or law to avoid time‑bar	Held: Plaintiffs failed to rebut HPD's prima facie showing; dismissal proper

Matter of Weinstein v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 39 A.D.3d 764 (2d Dep't 2007) (Article 78 decision confirming HPD eviction determination)
Rodeo Family Enters., LLC v. Matte, 99 A.D.3d 781 (2d Dep't 2012) (defendant bears initial burden on CPLR 3211(a)(5) statute‑of‑limitations showing)
Swift v. New York Med. Coll., 25 A.D.3d 686 (2d Dep't 2006) (accrual and limitations principles on CPLR 3211(a)(5) motions)
Gravel v. Cicola, 297 A.D.2d 620 (2d Dep't 2002) (defendant must establish when cause of action accrued for dismissal)
Singh v. Edelstein, 103 A.D.3d 873 (2d Dep't 2013) (burden shifts to plaintiff after defendant establishes expiration of limitations)
Way v. City of Beacon, 96 A.D.3d 829 (2d Dep't 2012) (§ 1983 claims governed by three‑year statute under CPLR 214)
Matter of Greenfield v. Town of Babylon Dept. of Assessment, 76 A.D.3d 1071 (2d Dep't 2010) (discussion of § 1983 accrual and applicable limitations)
Palmer v. State of New York, 57 A.D.3d 364 (2d Dep't 2008) (§ 1983 accrual occurs when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury)
Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (federal precedent on accrual for civil rights claims)