Chamberlin v. Board of Education of the City School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chamberlin v. Board of Education of the City School District

200 A.D.2d 529, 607 N.Y.S.2d 247

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 529 (Chamberlin v. Board of Education of the 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

Chamberlin v. Board of Education of the City School District, 200 A.D.2d 529, 607 N.Y.S.2d 247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), rendered January 5, 1993, which granted petitioner’s motion for reargument and upon reargument, adhered to the prior order entered August 26, 1992 dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claims for, inter alia, additional back pay and interest are time-barred since he failed to commence the instant proceeding within four months from the date he executed the releases which he now requests this Court to review (CPLR 217).

In any event, were we to reach petitioner’s claims, we would find them to be without merit. Petitioner executed two releases discharging respondents from any claims he may have had with respect to his compensation from December 1, 1976 until May 2, 1982, based on two arbitration awards. Moreover, petitioner’s contention that the releases were obtained by fraud or that he signed them under duress is unsupported. (See, Hydrodyne Indus. v Marine Midland Bank, 118 AD2d 626.) Nor is petitioner correct in arguing that the releases are void under Education Law § 3108 since they are specifically limited to apply to claims regarding petitioner’s dismissal affecting fixed periods of time (see, Herman v Malamed, 110 AD2d 575).

[530]*530We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), rendered January 5, 1993, which granted petitioner’s motion for reargument and upon reargument, adhered to the prior order entered August 26, 1992 dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claims for, inter alia, additional back pay and interest are time-barred since he failed to commence the instant proceeding within four months from the date he executed the releases which he now requests this Court to review (CPLR 217).

In any event, were we to reach petitioner’s claims, we would find them to be without merit. Petitioner executed two releases discharging respondents from any claims he may have had with respect to his compensation from December 1, 1976 until May 2, 1982, based on two arbitration awards. Moreover, petitioner’s contention that the releases were obtained by fraud or that he signed them under duress is unsupported. (See, Hydrodyne Indus. v Marine Midland Bank, 118 AD2d 626.) Nor is petitioner correct in arguing that the releases are void under Education Law § 3108 since they are specifically limited to apply to claims regarding petitioner’s dismissal affecting fixed periods of time (see, Herman v Malamed, 110 AD2d 575).

[530]*530We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 529, 607 N.Y.S.2d 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlin-v-board-of-education-of-the-city-school-district-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack