It is undisputed that section 6-06 (c), prohibiting the display of advertising in certain public telephone enclosures in Manhattan, became final and binding on December 4, 2004. Petitioners filed a motion for leave to amend their federal complaint on March 28, 2005 to include claims pertaining to that section. The federal court decided the motion on August 2 of that year, and the instant petition was filed on September 1. Even if the statute of limitations was tolled between March 28 and August 2, 2005 ( see Perez v Paramount Communications, 92 NY2d 749), more than four months elapsed between December 4, 2004 and September 1, 2005, to wit: three months and 24 days elapsed between December 4, 2004 and March 28, 2005, and one month between August 2 and September 1, 2005. Therefore, petitioners' attack on section 6-06 (c) is time-barred ( see CPLR 217). We will not permit petitioners to do an end-run around the statute of limitations by attacking the June 2005 notices to proceed instead of the regulation itself ( see Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. Telecom, of City of NY, 5 NY3d 30, 34 n [2005]).
In light of our disposition, we find it unnecessary to reach the substantive arguments raised by petitioner.
[See 12 Misc 3d 1179(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 51313(U).]