Matter of Schwartz v. Handy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Schwartz v. Handy

122 A.D.3d 407, 994 N.Y.S.2d 538

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2014

Docket13392 107858/11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 407 (Matter of Schwartz v. Handy) 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

Matter of Schwartz v. Handy, 122 A.D.3d 407, 994 N.Y.S.2d 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about December 19, 2011, granting respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Civil Service Commission, which denied petitioner’s request for an adjustment of his seniority date from February 13, 1997 to August 8, 1994, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that petitioner suffered “actual, concrete injury” (Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom, of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]) no later than December 8, 2010, when he was unequivocally informed of the determination that his seniority date was February 13, 1997. Accordingly, the petition, filed in July 2011, was untimely (CPLR 217).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, De-Grasse and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about December 19, 2011, granting respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition to annul the determination of respondent New York City Civil Service Commission, which denied petitioner’s request for an adjustment of his seniority date from February 13, 1997 to August 8, 1994, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record establishes that petitioner suffered “actual, concrete injury” (Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom, of City of N.Y., 5 NY3d 30, 34 [2005]) no later than December 8, 2010, when he was unequivocally informed of the determination that his seniority date was February 13, 1997. Accordingly, the petition, filed in July 2011, was untimely (CPLR 217).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, De-Grasse and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 407, 994 N.Y.S.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-schwartz-v-handy-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack