The motion court correctly held that this second CPLR article 78 proceeding constituted an improper attempt by petitioner to relitigate his prior article 78 proceeding and respondents' prior denial of his FOIL request. Since petitioner's first article 78 proceeding was dismissed as time-barred, a result that is the equivalent to a final disposition on the merits (see, Smith v Russell Sage Coll.,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.