Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Board of Education

87 A.D.3d 557, 927 N.Y.2d 921

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

DecidedAugust 9, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 557 (Civil Service Employees Ass'n 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

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Board of Education, 87 A.D.3d 557, 927 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff correctly contends that, since it was seeking [558]*558only equitable relief, and not money damages, it was not required to serve a notice of claim under Education Law § 3813 (1) (see Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 79 AD3d 521, 522 [2010]; Matter of Yagan v Bernardi, 256 AD2d 1225 [1998]; Ruocco v Doyle, 38 AD2d 132, 133-134 [1972]).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to convert the action to a declaratory judgment action. There is only one form of civil action (see CPLR 103 [a]), so there is no need to convert this action in order for the plaintiff to seek declaratory relief (cf. CPLR 3025 [b]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222 [2008]).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Ashley Homes of Long Is., Inc. v County of Suffolk, 58 AD3d 772, 773 [2009]; Creative Kids Enrichment, LLC v Yorktown Off. Warehouse, LLC, 41 AD3d 416, 417 [2007]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Covello, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff correctly contends that, since it was seeking [558]*558only equitable relief, and not money damages, it was not required to serve a notice of claim under Education Law § 3813 (1) (see Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 79 AD3d 521, 522 [2010]; Matter of Yagan v Bernardi, 256 AD2d 1225 [1998]; Ruocco v Doyle, 38 AD2d 132, 133-134 [1972]).

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to convert the action to a declaratory judgment action. There is only one form of civil action (see CPLR 103 [a]), so there is no need to convert this action in order for the plaintiff to seek declaratory relief (cf. CPLR 3025 [b]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222 [2008]).

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Ashley Homes of Long Is., Inc. v County of Suffolk, 58 AD3d 772, 773 [2009]; Creative Kids Enrichment, LLC v Yorktown Off. Warehouse, LLC, 41 AD3d 416, 417 [2007]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P, Covello, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 557, 927 N.Y.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/civil-service-employees-assn-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack