Separate Applications, Separate Clocks: Camarda v. Ubert Clarifies the 30-Day Limitations Period for Article 78 Review of Village ZBA Decisions

1. Introduction

Matter of Camarda v. Ubert (2025 NY Slip Op 03061) presented the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, with a familiar zoning skirmish, but an unsettled procedural question: When does the 30-day statute of limitations in Village Law § 7-712-c(1) begin to run if a property owner files a second, distinct application to a Village Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) after an original variance was granted?

The petitioner, Vincent J. Camarda, had obtained area variances to build a new garage. After securing a building permit premised on modestly modified plans, he erected the garage—only to receive a violation order from the Building Inspector and an adverse ZBA ruling. His February 2022 Article 78 petition attacked that second ZBA decision (January 14 2022). The respondents (ZBA members and the Village) countered that the proceeding was untimely because more than 30 days had elapsed since the first ZBA decision (April 23 2021). The Supreme Court (Suffolk County) agreed and dismissed the case as time-barred.

On appeal, the Second Department reversed, holding that the limitations period is triggered by the filing of the specific ZBA decision being challenged, not by an earlier, different decision—even if both concern the same property. The ruling reinstates the petition and clarifies who bears the burden of proving timeliness under Village Law § 7-712-c(1).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Department unanimously reversed the Supreme Court’s dismissal.
The court held that the 30-day statute of limitations in Village Law § 7-712-c(1) began to run when the January 2022 ZBA decision was filed, not when the April 2021 decision was filed.
Because respondents failed to show that more than 30 days elapsed between the January 2022 filing and the February 11 2022 commencement, the Article 78 petition is timely.
The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a decision on the merits.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Matter of Baker v. Stanford, 183 AD3d 889 (2020) – Confirms the general four-month limit for Article 78 unless a shorter period applies.
Matter of Florida Historical Society v. ZBA of the Village of Florida, 197 AD3d 1313 (2021) – Applies Village Law § 7-712-c(1)’s 30-day period to village zoning decisions.
Matter of Gentile v. Village of Tuckahoe ZBA, 87 AD3d 695 (2011) – Allocates to the respondent the burden of proving that a petition is untimely.
Matter of Crowell v. ZBA of the Town of Queensbury, 151 AD3d 1247 (2017) – Explains how courts identify the “final and binding” administrative act for limitations purposes.
Matter of Yarbough v. Franco, 95 NY2d 342 (2000) – Clarifies that motions for reconsideration do not toll statutes of limitation.
Rock v. NYC Employees’ Retirement System, 231 AD3d 979 (2024) – Reiterates that reconsideration requests generally do not reset limitations clocks.
Additional supportive citations: Matter of Riverso, Matter of Shepherd, and others addressing Article 78 timeliness.

By weaving these precedents, the court distinguished between a true “request for reconsideration” (which does not restart the clock) and a bona fide new application (which does).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Identifying the Decision Under Review. The court first pinpointed the administrative act actually under attack: the January 14 2022 ZBA decision. Following Crowell, timeliness is measured from the filing date of that “final and binding” determination.
New Application vs. Reconsideration. The petitioner’s November 2021 filing was not a plea to reconsider the April 2021 variance; it raised new issues (good-faith reliance on the Building Inspector, de minimis deviation, and amended lot-coverage request). Therefore, Yarbough/Reconsideration doctrine was inapplicable.
Statutory Burden of Proof. Under Gentile, the party asserting a limitations defense must prove the triggering event occurred outside the statutory window. Respondents offered no evidence that 30 days passed between January 14 2022 (filing) and February 11 2022 (petition). Their argument improperly used the April 23 2021 date—fatal to the defense.
Policy Considerations. The court rejected the village’s fear of incentivizing “construction errors,” noting that property owners still assume substantial risk. The ruling is narrowly confined to statutory timing, not to merits or municipal enforcement power.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

Clear Trigger for 30-Day Limit. Litigants now have appellate confirmation that each distinct ZBA decision starts its own 30-day clock. Counsel must ascertain which decision is actually being challenged.
Burden on Municipal Respondents. Villages and towns defending Article 78 petitions must marshal proof—typically the village-clerk “file-stamp”—showing when the challenged decision was filed.
Strategic Implications for Property Owners. Owners may safely pursue supplemental or alternative relief before the ZBA without forfeiting later judicial review, provided they meet the 30-day deadline keyed to the latest decision.
Administrative Practice. ZBAs should clearly label subsequent determinations to avoid confusion and ensure prompt clerk filing, lest questions about timeliness erode enforcement actions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 78 Proceeding: A special civil action in New York courts allowing individuals to challenge the determinations or inaction of state or local agencies.
Village Law § 7-712-c(1): The statutory provision requiring any challenge to a village ZBA decision to be filed within 30 days of that decision’s filing with the village clerk.
Variance: Permission granted by a zoning board to deviate from strict zoning requirements (e.g., building height, setbacks, lot coverage).
Reconsideration Doctrine: As explained in Yarbough, merely asking an agency to reconsider an earlier decision does not delay or restart the limitations period for judicial review.
Final and Binding Determination: The administrative act that definitively impacts the petitioner’s rights, triggering the limitations clock.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Camarda v. Ubert establishes a crisp rule: When a party submits a new, substantively distinct application to a village ZBA, the 30-day statute of limitations under Village Law § 7-712-c(1) commences upon the filing of the decision that disposes of that particular application—not any earlier ZBA determination concerning the property.

The judgment reinforces two broader principles of New York administrative law: (1) courts must carefully identify the specific administrative act under attack, and (2) the respondent bears the burden of proving untimeliness. By reversing the dismissal and reviving the petition, the Second Department ensures litigants obtain judicial review where appropriate, without compromising municipalities’ ability to enforce zoning laws. Practitioners should heed the decision when advising clients on zoning strategies, crafting Article 78 pleadings, or defending municipal actions going forward.