Abramson v. Board of Education

120 A.D.2d 474, 502 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56548
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 474 (Abramson v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abramson v. Board of Education, 120 A.D.2d 474, 502 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In an action to recover lost wages, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 15, 1985 (Morton, J.), which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

In February 1981 the plaintiff commenced working as a probationary teacher at Public School No. 225 in Queens County. In May 1981, after viewing the plaintiff in the classroom and finding his work unsatisfactory, the District Superintendent informed the plaintiff by letter that he should immediately take a leave of absence without pay until February 1982, at which time he should retire. This, the plaintiff did.

In June 1983 the plaintiff commenced an action to recover lost wages for the school years 1981 through 1984. The defendant Board moved for summary judgment on the ground that the suit was time barred since the plaintiff was required to bring a timely proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge any action taken by it.

A discharged public employee cannot recover back pay unless he proves his right to the position from which he was discharged in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Austin v Board of Higher Educ., 5 NY2d 430; Piro v Bowen, 76 AD2d 392; see also, Matter of Golomb v Board of Educ., 92 AD2d 256). Although the plaintiff was not technically discharged, the actions by the District Superintendent compelling him to take a leave of absence and then retire, and his later refusal to permit the plaintiff to return to work, should have been challenged pursuant to CPLR article 78. The plaintiff is time barred from maintaining such a proceeding and [475]*475therefore cannot maintain an action for damages. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Weslowski v. Zugibe
2018 NY Slip Op 8712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Conklin v. Town of Ramapo
214 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Finley v. Giacobbe
848 F. Supp. 1146 (S.D. New York, 1994)
Semaan v. State
199 A.D.2d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.2d 474, 502 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abramson-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1986.