Fodera v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fodera v. City of New York

193 A.D.2d 406, 597 N.Y.S.2d 66

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

DecidedMay 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 406 (Fodera v. City of New York) 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

Fodera v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 406, 597 N.Y.S.2d 66 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 20, 1992, which in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination rejecting petitioner’s request for a lump-sum payment of accrued leave upon retirement, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent agency’s determination to reject petitioner’s request for a lump-sum payment had "its impact” upon petitioner when he received the agency’s letter returning the form he used to make such a request and advising him that it was "no longer required” to prepare a Managerial Lump-Sum Payment Plan because of his demotion to a non-managerial position (see, Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714; Matter of Kurland v McLaughlin, 122 AD2d 947, 948). Since the proceeding was not commenced within four months thereafter, it was properly dismissed as time-barred (CPLR 217). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered February 20, 1992, which in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination rejecting petitioner’s request for a lump-sum payment of accrued leave upon retirement, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent agency’s determination to reject petitioner’s request for a lump-sum payment had "its impact” upon petitioner when he received the agency’s letter returning the form he used to make such a request and advising him that it was "no longer required” to prepare a Managerial Lump-Sum Payment Plan because of his demotion to a non-managerial position (see, Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714; Matter of Kurland v McLaughlin, 122 AD2d 947, 948). Since the proceeding was not commenced within four months thereafter, it was properly dismissed as time-barred (CPLR 217). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 406, 597 N.Y.S.2d 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fodera-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack