CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess

295 A.D.2d 346, 743 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 346 (CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess) 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

CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess, 295 A.D.2d 346, 743 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the appellant dated September 2, 1999, reclassifying the job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees, and to enjoin the appellant from requiring those employees to perform out-of-title work, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 8, 2001, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the County of Dutchess (hereinafter the County), the Supreme Court properly concluded that the reclassification of the job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees had never become final and binding within the meaning of CPLR 217 (1) because the County failed to notify the affected employees of the changes. Accordingly, the statute of limitations had not expired when this petition was filed (see CPLR 217 [1]; Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342). Moreover, the County’s contention that the proceeding was not ripe because the petitioner union failed to exhaust its contractual remedies is without merit. A review of the relevant circumstances of this case establishes that the union proceeded through the contractual grievance process before it commenced this proceeding. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the appellant dated September 2, 1999, reclassifying the job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees, and to enjoin the appellant from requiring those employees to perform out-of-title work, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 8, 2001, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the County of Dutchess (hereinafter the County), the Supreme Court properly concluded that the reclassification of the job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees had never become final and binding within the meaning of CPLR 217 (1) because the County failed to notify the affected employees of the changes. Accordingly, the statute of limitations had not expired when this petition was filed (see CPLR 217 [1]; Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342). Moreover, the County’s contention that the proceeding was not ripe because the petitioner union failed to exhaust its contractual remedies is without merit. A review of the relevant circumstances of this case establishes that the union proceeded through the contractual grievance process before it commenced this proceeding. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 346, 743 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/csea-local-1000-v-county-of-dutchess-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack