Jenkins v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. New York City Department of Education

88 A.D.3d 600, 931 N.Y.2d 498

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.3d 600 (Jenkins 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

Jenkins v. New York City Department of Education, 88 A.D.3d 600, 931 N.Y.2d 498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, the motion court found that plaintiff’s claims are time-barred because the complaints filed in this consolidated action were not filed within 10 days of the arbitrator’s determination as required by Education Law § 3020-a (5). However, plaintiff commenced the action before the arbitrator’s ruling was issued. Accordingly, the prudent course would have been to convert the instant action to an article 75 proceeding and to consider defendants’ alternative bases for dismissal (see e.g. Scaduto v DT Indus., 266 AD2d 149 [1999]; Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d 836 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 802 [1999]; CPLR 103 [c]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, the motion court found that plaintiff’s claims are time-barred because the complaints filed in this consolidated action were not filed within 10 days of the arbitrator’s determination as required by Education Law § 3020-a (5). However, plaintiff commenced the action before the arbitrator’s ruling was issued. Accordingly, the prudent course would have been to convert the instant action to an article 75 proceeding and to consider defendants’ alternative bases for dismissal (see e.g. Scaduto v DT Indus., 266 AD2d 149 [1999]; Broderick v Board of Educ., Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 253 AD2d 836 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 802 [1999]; CPLR 103 [c]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 600, 931 N.Y.2d 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack