Majority
Respondent’s letter, dated January 13, 2015, informing petitioner that it had determined that petitioner’s project was ineligible for J-51 benefits was final and binding on petitioner, and the four-month statute of limitations began to run on petitioner’s receipt of it (see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30 , 34 [2005]; Matter of Essex County v Zagata, 91 NY2d 447 , 453 [1998]). As petitioner acknowledges, the agency’s rules do not expressly provide for administrative review of the denial of a petition for J-51 benefits. Nor did petitioner’s request for reconsideration and respondent’s rejection of the request extend the statutory limitation period (Matter of Fiore v Board of Educ. Retirement Sys. of City of N.Y., 48 AD2d 850 [2d Dept 1975], affd for the reasons stated 39 NY2d 1016 [1976]; see also Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2012]).
In light of the foregoing, we do not address petitioner’s remaining arguments.
Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
Cases cited
- Best Payphones, Inc. v. Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications 5 NY3d 30 at 34 p. 521
- Essex County v. Zagata 91 NY2d 447 at 453 p. 521
- Fiore v. Board of Education Retirement System 48 AD2d 850 p. 521
- Fiore v. Board of Education Retirement System 39 NY2d 1016 p. 521