Levine v. Board of Education

272 A.D.2d 328, 707 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4867
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 1, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 328 (Levine v. Board 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
Levine v. Board of Education, 272 A.D.2d 328, 707 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York dated July 22, 1998, which sustained a prior determination of the Board of Education of the City of New York, dated January 20, 1998, terminating the petitioner from his position as laboratory specialist, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 3, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding as barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding (see, CPLR 217; Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 974, 976). Where, as here, the petitioner’s remedy is in the nature of mandamus to review, the determination becomes final and binding on the date that the termination of employment becomes effective (see, Matter of De Milio v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216, 220; Matter of Shovers v Casey, 263 AD2d 458; Matter of Persico v Board of Educ., 220 AD2d 512, 513; Matter of Schulman v Board of Educ., 184 [329]*329AD2d 643). The petitioner’s contention that his invocation of an administrative grievance procedure in accordance with his union’s collective bargaining agreement tolled the Statute of Limitations is without merit (see, Matter of Fraiser v Board of Educ., 71 NY2d 763, 766-767; Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ., supra, at 976; Matter of De Milio v Borghard, supra, at 220; Matter of McCain v Fernandez, 226 AD2d 380, 381). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Bruno v. Greenville Fire Dist.
125 A.D.3d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Rapoli v. Village of Red Hook
29 A.D.3d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Mawn v. County of Suffolk
17 A.D.3d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
O'Connor v. Board of Education
11 A.D.3d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Schirmer v. Town of Harrison
294 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Bonilla v. Board of Education
285 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Budihas v. Board of Education
285 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Mateo v. Board of Education
285 A.D.2d 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 328, 707 N.Y.S.2d 475, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2000.