DiRuzzo v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiRuzzo v. Department of Education

44 A.D.3d 535, 844 N.Y.S.2d 32

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 535 (DiRuzzo v. Department 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

DiRuzzo v. Department of Education, 44 A.D.3d 535, 844 N.Y.S.2d 32 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered August 24, 2006, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge petitioner’s termination from her teaching position, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court’s time-bar determination was correct. Petitioner concedes that once a claim accrues, a grievance does not toll the statutory limitation period. She does not argue that the November 2005 grievance extended her original accrual date, nor does she challenge the grievance determination as such. She has not shown that the 2005 grievance was a “fresh and new redetermination” (Matter of Corbisiero v New York State Tax Commn., 82 AD2d 990, 990 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 680 [1982]) of the termination issue. Petitioner’s argument that dismissal is warranted by respondent’s default on the petition is raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it. Were we to do so, we would reject it. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered August 24, 2006, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge petitioner’s termination from her teaching position, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court’s time-bar determination was correct. Petitioner concedes that once a claim accrues, a grievance does not toll the statutory limitation period. She does not argue that the November 2005 grievance extended her original accrual date, nor does she challenge the grievance determination as such. She has not shown that the 2005 grievance was a “fresh and new redetermination” (Matter of Corbisiero v New York State Tax Commn., 82 AD2d 990, 990 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 680 [1982]) of the termination issue. Petitioner’s argument that dismissal is warranted by respondent’s default on the petition is raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider it. Were we to do so, we would reject it. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 535, 844 N.Y.S.2d 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diruzzo-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack