Matter of Grassel v. Department of Educ. of The City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Grassel v. Department of Educ. of The City of New York

2016 NY Slip Op 8019, 144 A.D.3d 609, 41 N.Y.S.3d 422

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2016·No. 2337 100162/15·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 8, 2015, granting respondent Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York’s (sued herein as Department of Education of the City Of New York, School District of the City of New York) cross motion to dismiss the petition to direct respondent to credit petitioner with salary and a “Cumulative Absence Reserve,” in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to allege any final determinations of respon *610 dent made within four months of commencement of the instant proceeding. Accordingly, the proceeding is barred by the applicable statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Carter v State of N.Y., Exec. Dept., Div. of Parole, 95 NY2d 267, 270 [2000]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 8, 2015, granting respondent Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York’s (sued herein as Department of Education of the City Of New York, School District of the City of New York) cross motion to dismiss the petition to direct respondent to credit petitioner with salary and a “Cumulative Absence Reserve,” in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to allege any final determinations of respon *610 dent made within four months of commencement of the instant proceeding. Accordingly, the proceeding is barred by the applicable statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Carter v State of N.Y., Exec. Dept., Div. of Parole, 95 NY2d 267, 270 [2000]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Matter of Grassel v. Department of Educ. of The City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 8019, 144 A.D.3d 609, 41 N.Y.S.3d 422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 8019 (Matter of Grassel v. Department of Educ. of The City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related