Naval v. Herbert H. Lehman College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Naval v. Herbert H. Lehman College

303 A.D.2d 662, 756 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3200

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 662 (Naval v. Herbert H. Lehman College) 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

Naval v. Herbert H. Lehman College, 303 A.D.2d 662, 756 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for alleged discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 290 et seq., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated December 18, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant action as time-barred (see Matter of Queensborough Community Coll, of City Univ. of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d 926 [1977]; Mitchell v Nassau Community Coll., 265 AD2d 456 [1999]). CPLR 205 (a) is not applicable to the instant case, since the plaintiff’s similar and timely-commenced federal action was terminated by voluntary discontinuance (see Kourkoumelis v Arnel, 238 AD2d 313 [1997]). S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur. ■

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

—In an action to recover damages for alleged discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 290 et seq., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated December 18, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant action as time-barred (see Matter of Queensborough Community Coll, of City Univ. of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d 926 [1977]; Mitchell v Nassau Community Coll., 265 AD2d 456 [1999]). CPLR 205 (a) is not applicable to the instant case, since the plaintiff’s similar and timely-commenced federal action was terminated by voluntary discontinuance (see Kourkoumelis v Arnel, 238 AD2d 313 [1997]). S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 662, 756 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naval-v-herbert-h-lehman-college-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack