Cuyle v. Town Board of OxfordCuyle v. Town Board of Oxford
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered October 19, 2001 in Chenango County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as, inter alia, untimely.
According to her petition, petitioner is the owner of a home on a parcel of real property located on South Washington Street in the Town of Oxford, Chenango County, which adjoins real property owned by Richard Purdy, not a named party in this special proceeding. In December 2000, petitioner filed an ap
Petitioner did not commence the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Board’s decision until April 10, 2001, and failed to name or serve either Purdy or the Board as respondents. Supreme Court dismissed her petition as untimely under the 30-day statute of limitations provided by Town Law § 267-c (1) and for failure to name or serve necessary parties. Petitioner appeals pro se, and we affirm.
Petitioner’s commencement of this special proceeding on April 10, 2001 was clearly untimely, as it was not “instituted within [30] days after the filing of [the] decision of the [B]oard in the office of the town clerk” (Town Law § 267-c [1]; see Matter of O’Connell v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of New Scotland,
Turning to the other ground for dismissal of the petition,
Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.