Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals
New York Court of Appeals
5 N.Y.3d 452, 805 N.Y.S.2d 525, 839 N.E.2d 878 (2005)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
The Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce (chamber) (plaintiff) was an organization of local Brooklyn businesses. Claiming that it could not secure enough commercial tenants, the intended developer of a Brooklynn warehouse asked the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (board) (defendant) to grant a zoning variance permitting the developer to use the warehouse for residential purposes instead of for industrial purposes. The chamber opposed the developer’s request, but the board granted the application. Under New York City (city) (defendant) law, the chamber had 30 days to challenge the board’s decision. On the thirtieth day after the board’s ruling, the chamber sued in the supreme court to reverse the variance. However, the chamber named only the board and the city as defendants; the chamber did not sue the developer. The city moved to dismiss the chamber’s petition on the ground that the developer was a necessary party that the chamber failed timely to sue. The chamber cross-moved to amend its petition to add the developer as a defendant. The supreme court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion to amend. The appellate division reversed, ruling that Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 1001 barred adding the developer as a defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations because the chamber did not adequately explain its failure to sue the developer in the initial petition. The chamber appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.