Gelin v. Lehman College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gelin v. Lehman College

254 A.D.2d 119, 679 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10837

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 119 (Gelin v. Lehman College) 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

Gelin v. Lehman College, 254 A.D.2d 119, 679 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order (denominated order and judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 4, 1998, which, in an action by plaintiff student against senior colleges of City University for breach of contract, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Education Law § 6224 (4) conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims over claims for breach of contract against City University involving its senior colleges (see, Matter of Illickal v Roman, 236 AD2d 247, lv denied 90 NY2d 802), and notwithstanding defendant’s failure to timely answer the complaint, lack of subject matter jurisdiction being a nonwaivable defense that may be raised at any stage of the action (Matter of Fry v Village of Tarry town, 89 NY2d 714, 718). We decline to review plaintiff’s claim of discrimination, which was not pleaded in his complaint and is raised for the first time on appeal.

We note that, in any event, the action would be time-barred. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order (denominated order and judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered February 4, 1998, which, in an action by plaintiff student against senior colleges of City University for breach of contract, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Education Law § 6224 (4) conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims over claims for breach of contract against City University involving its senior colleges (see, Matter of Illickal v Roman, 236 AD2d 247, lv denied 90 NY2d 802), and notwithstanding defendant’s failure to timely answer the complaint, lack of subject matter jurisdiction being a nonwaivable defense that may be raised at any stage of the action (Matter of Fry v Village of Tarry town, 89 NY2d 714, 718). We decline to review plaintiff’s claim of discrimination, which was not pleaded in his complaint and is raised for the first time on appeal.

We note that, in any event, the action would be time-barred. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 119, 679 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelin-v-lehman-college-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack