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

117 A.D.3d 564, 985 N.Y.S.2d 413

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

DecidedMay 20, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 564 (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, 117 A.D.3d 564, 985 N.Y.S.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 27, 2013, which dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s arguments that the charges against him were false and maliciously motivated, and that his union-provided counsel notified DOE counsel of a hearing date, do not provide a basis to vacate the arbitration award against him pursuant to CPLR article 75 (Matter of Asch v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 104 AD3d 415, 418 [1st Dept 2013]). Further, contrary to petitioner’s arguments, to the extent his claims for defamation or libel could be said to survive the conversion of this action to a proceeding under article 75, those claims are time-barred since the action was commenced more than one year after the acts complained of (CPLR 215 [3]).

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman, Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 27, 2013, which dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s arguments that the charges against him were false and maliciously motivated, and that his union-provided counsel notified DOE counsel of a hearing date, do not provide a basis to vacate the arbitration award against him pursuant to CPLR article 75 (Matter of Asch v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 104 AD3d 415, 418 [1st Dept 2013]). Further, contrary to petitioner’s arguments, to the extent his claims for defamation or libel could be said to survive the conversion of this action to a proceeding under article 75, those claims are time-barred since the action was commenced more than one year after the acts complained of (CPLR 215 [3]).

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman, Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 564, 985 N.Y.S.2d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2014.