SENIORS FOR SAFETY, ETC. ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION res

MATTER OF SENIORS FOR SAFETY, ETC. ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION res — (INDEX NO. 5210/11)In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York City Department of Transportation to develop and construct, among other things, a bicycle lane on a public street, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County Bunyan, J.), entered August 16, 2011, as denied, as academic, that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 408 for leave to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether the challenged project was initially installed on a trial basis and dismissed, as time-barred, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination or compel further administrative action.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MATTER OF SENIORS FOR SAFETY, ETC. ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION res — (INDEX NO. 5210/11)In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York City Department of Transportation to develop and construct, among other things, a bicycle lane on a public street, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County Bunyan, J.), entered August 16, 2011, as denied, as academic, that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 408 for leave to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether the challenged project was initially installed on a trial basis and dismissed, as time-barred, those branches of the amended petition which were to annul the determination or compel further administrative action.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the first cause of action in the amended petition, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying, as academic, that branch of the petitioners’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 408 for leave to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether the challenged project was intitially installed on a trial basis; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the first cause of action in the amended petition is reinstated and severed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination on the merits of that branch of the petitioners’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 408 for leave to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether the challenged project was initially installed on a trial basis, for hearing and a new determination thereafter on the issue of whether the first cause of action is time-barred, and for further proceedings on that cause of action if warranted.

SENIORS FOR SAFETY, ETC. ap, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal