Kowalczyk v. Ricci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kowalczyk v. Ricci

269 A.D.2d 865, 703 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1831

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 865 (Kowalczyk v. Ricci) 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

Kowalczyk v. Ricci, 269 A.D.2d 865, 703 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The complaint, wherein plaintiffs alleged that David E. Kowalczyk (plaintiff) was improperly terminated from his position in violation of his rights pursuant to the Civil Service Law, presents “ ‘the classic formulation of an article 78 proceeding’ ” (Broderick v Board of Educ., 253 AD2d 836, 837, lv denied 93 NY2d 802, quoting Foster v City of New York, 157 AD2d 516, 518; Vanmaenen v Hewlett-Woodmere Pub. Schools, 226 AD2d 151; Conklin v Town of Ramapo, 214 AD2d 639, 640-641). This action, commenced more than four months after the termination of plaintiff’s employment, is time-barred (see, Broderick v Board of Educ., supra, at 837; CPLR 217). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, A. P. J., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The complaint, wherein plaintiffs alleged that David E. Kowalczyk (plaintiff) was improperly terminated from his position in violation of his rights pursuant to the Civil Service Law, presents “ ‘the classic formulation of an article 78 proceeding’ ” (Broderick v Board of Educ., 253 AD2d 836, 837, lv denied 93 NY2d 802, quoting Foster v City of New York, 157 AD2d 516, 518; Vanmaenen v Hewlett-Woodmere Pub. Schools, 226 AD2d 151; Conklin v Town of Ramapo, 214 AD2d 639, 640-641). This action, commenced more than four months after the termination of plaintiff’s employment, is time-barred (see, Broderick v Board of Educ., supra, at 837; CPLR 217). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, A. P. J., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 865, 703 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalczyk-v-ricci-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack