Justice Arlene Bluth
The court was presented by this Article 78 proceeding challenging a decision by New York City’s Housing Authority reversing a hearing officer’s disposition, and terminating petitioner’s tenancy. The city cross-moved for dismissal, arguing the petition was time-barred, noting the statute of limitations began to run Sept. 2, 2009, and this action was not begun until March 2012. Petitioner argued she never saw a copy of the determination, and did not know the tenancy was terminated until she was brought to court on a holdover proceeding. The court noted she did not claim that her guardian ad litem failed to tell her about the determination. It also noted even if the statute began to run, at the latest, on Nov. 19, 2010, petitioner had four months to begin the Article 78, but did not until one year later. Petitioner sought a finding that her severe disabilities render her “insane” to prevent the running of the statute of limitations until such time as a guardian ad litem was appointed. However, the court noted an evaluating psychiatrist found petitioner neither “insane” or incapable of functioning in society, nor a worsening of any condition. As such, no toll was required and the suit was dismissed as time-barred.
