Gastman v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gastman v. Department of Education

60 A.D.3d 444, 874 N.Y.S.2d 459

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 444 (Gastman 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

Gastman v. Department of Education, 60 A.D.3d 444, 874 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J), entered February 28, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion to renew its prior motion to dismiss the complaint and, upon renewal, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim (Education Law § 3813 [1]). As the court held, plaintiffs unverified letters and e-mails to Department of Education personnel, “each addressing different aspects of her complaints,” do not constitute a notice of claim (see Education Law § 3813 [1]; Var[445]*445sity Tr., Inc. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 532 [2005]; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 547 [1983]). In any event, such correspondence was not presented to defendant’s governing body within three months after the accrual of plaintiffs discrimination claims as required by the statute (see Pinder v City of New York, 49 AD 3d 280 [2008]). Plaintiffs application for leave to file a late notice of claim made beyond the one-year statute of limitations must be denied as untimely (see Education Law § 3813 [2-b]; Matter of Amorosi v South Colonie Ind. Cent. School Dist., 9 NY3d 367, 373-374 [2007]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J), entered February 28, 2008, which granted defendant’s motion to renew its prior motion to dismiss the complaint and, upon renewal, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to file a timely notice of claim (Education Law § 3813 [1]). As the court held, plaintiffs unverified letters and e-mails to Department of Education personnel, “each addressing different aspects of her complaints,” do not constitute a notice of claim (see Education Law § 3813 [1]; Var[445]*445sity Tr., Inc. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 532 [2005]; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 547 [1983]). In any event, such correspondence was not presented to defendant’s governing body within three months after the accrual of plaintiffs discrimination claims as required by the statute (see Pinder v City of New York, 49 AD 3d 280 [2008]). Plaintiffs application for leave to file a late notice of claim made beyond the one-year statute of limitations must be denied as untimely (see Education Law § 3813 [2-b]; Matter of Amorosi v South Colonie Ind. Cent. School Dist., 9 NY3d 367, 373-374 [2007]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 444, 874 N.Y.S.2d 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gastman-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack