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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 25, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

200 A.D.2d 529 (Chamberlin v. Board of Education of the City School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related