Agoado v. Board of Education of City School District

282 A.D.2d 602, 723 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 16, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 602 (Agoado v. Board of Education of City School District) 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
Agoado v. Board of Education of City School District, 282 A.D.2d 602, 723 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondents to conduct formal performance reviews in accordance with Board of Education By-Law 5.3.4A, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated April 6, 2000, which, upon the granting of the respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

[603]*603Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Before commencing a proceeding in the nature of mandamus, it is necessary to make a demand and await a refusal. The Statute of Limitations begins to run on the date of the refusal and expires four months thereafter. The period in which action is required to be taken cannot be indefinitely extended by delaying the demand. An allegedly aggrieved party who does not proceed promptly and make a formal demand may be charged with laches (see, Austin v Board of Higher Educ., 5 NY2d 430, 442; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v Board of Educ., 239 AD2d 415, 416).

There is no evidence that the petitioners formally demanded appeals of their unsatisfactory ratings in accordance with Board of Education By-Law 5.3.4A. In any event, even If the petitioners made formal demands, their delay in bringing this proceeding was so extensive that it is barred by the doctrine of laches. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Montpay Realty Corp. v. Laveman
202 A.D.3d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Barresi v. County of Suffolk
72 A.D.3d 1076 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
EMP of Cadillac, LLC v. Assessor of Spring Valley
15 A.D.3d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Vestal Teacher's Ass'n v. Vestal Central School District
5 A.D.3d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Castroll v. Inc. Village
2 A.D.3d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Blue v. Commissioner of Social Services
306 A.D.2d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers
301 A.D.2d 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D.2d 602, 723 N.Y.S.2d 236, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agoado-v-board-of-education-of-city-school-district-nyappdiv-2001.