Friedland v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedland v. New York City Department of Education

39 A.D.3d 395, 832 N.Y.S.2d 800

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

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 395 (Friedland v. New York City 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

Friedland v. New York City Department of Education, 39 A.D.3d 395, 832 N.Y.S.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, [396]*396Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 13, 2005, which dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This probationary principal failed to commence this proceeding within four months from the termination date of her employment (see Matter of Lipton v New York City Bd. of Educ., 284 AD2d 140 [2001]). Petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularities in the administrative review process are not borne out by the record. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, [396]*396Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 13, 2005, which dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This probationary principal failed to commence this proceeding within four months from the termination date of her employment (see Matter of Lipton v New York City Bd. of Educ., 284 AD2d 140 [2001]). Petitioner’s claims of procedural irregularities in the administrative review process are not borne out by the record. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 395, 832 N.Y.S.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedland-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack