Friedland v. New York City Department of Education

39 A.D.3d 395, 832 N.Y.S.2d 800
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 2007·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

39 A.D.3d 395 (Friedland v. New York City Department of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Olden-Camiolo v. New York City Department of Education
39 Misc. 3d 982 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Brower v. New York City Department of Education
38 Misc. 3d 291 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
James v. Klein
43 A.D.3d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)