Lubin v. Board of Education

459 N.E.2d 481, 60 N.Y.2d 974, 471 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3592
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 1, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by74 cases

This text of 459 N.E.2d 481 (Lubin v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lubin v. Board of Education, 459 N.E.2d 481, 60 N.Y.2d 974, 471 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3592 (N.Y. 1983).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 217 provides that an article 78 proceeding “must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner”. For a determination to be final it must be clear that the petitioner seeking review has been aggrieved by it (Matter of Martin v Ronan, 44 NY2d 374, 380). Petitioner was informed on April 21, 1976 that his services were being terminated for failure to meet the requirements of his 1972 license. Petitioner clearly was aggrieved by this determination and his failure to commence a proceeding within four months requires dismissal of this proceeding. Inasmuch as petitioner’s appointment was based on his 1972 license, respondents’ misstatements and subsequent clarification concerning petitioner’s 1973 license cannot be viewed as relevant to respondents’ decision, in 1976 to rescind petitioner’s 1972 license and terminate his services. In addition, petitioner’s direction of correspondence to respondents, which can be viewed, at most, as a request for reconsideration, does not toll or revive the Statute of Limitations (see Matter of De Milio v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216). Finally, petitioner’s contention that his invocation of a grievance proceeding, which was determined not to be available under the United Federation of Teachers collective bargaining agreement, tolled the Statute of Limitations also is unavailing.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

[977]*977On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Bradstreet v. Rochester
W.D. New York, 2024
Matter of SUNCO Holding Corp. v. Town of Vestal
166 N.Y.S.3d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Barrett v. Russ
2021 NY Slip Op 06071 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Seiler v. Crandall
2020 NY Slip Op 06603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Piliero v. Eastchester Fire Dist.
2020 NY Slip Op 06268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Salomon v. Town of Wallkill
2019 NY Slip Op 5671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Stewart v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
2019 NY Slip Op 5069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Zherka v. Ramos
2019 NY Slip Op 4388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Imandt v. New York State Unified Ct. Sys.
2019 NY Slip Op 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Commodore Constr. Corp. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.
2018 NY Slip Op 3607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Tornheim v. Fiala
136 A.D.3d 797 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Mendez v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
128 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Orange County Economic Development Corporation v. State of New York Authorities Budget Office
128 A.D.3d 1256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Durham v. Berlin
127 A.D.3d 856 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Reilly v. Farley
120 A.D.3d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Bashir v. Environmental Control Board
113 A.D.3d 763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Silvestri v. Hubert
106 A.D.3d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Caslin v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission
104 A.D.3d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Hurwitz v. New York City Housing Authority
92 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Cappellino v. Town of Somers
83 A.D.3d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 N.E.2d 481, 60 N.Y.2d 974, 471 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubin-v-board-of-education-ny-1983.