Siino v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siino v. Department of Education

44 A.D.3d 568, 843 N.Y.S.2d 828

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 568 (Siino v. Department 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

Siino v. Department of Education, 44 A.D.3d 568, 843 N.Y.S.2d 828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or about July 26, 2006, which granted the motion of defendants New York City Department of Education (DOE) and New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s causes of action accrued, at the latest, when she was dismissed from her position as a tenured teacher with the New York City public school system (see Matter of McCain v Fernandez, 226 AD2d 380, 381 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 806 [1996]), more than seven years before she commenced the action. Accordingly, the action is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law § 3813 (2-b) (see North Salem Cent. School Dist. v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 1 AD3d 418, 419 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 620 [2004]). The action is also barred by the judgment in DOE’s favor in a prior federal proceeding that also involved plaintiffs termination of employment (see Thomas v City of New York, 239 AD2d 180 [1997]; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17, 20 [1985], affd 68 NY2d 702 [1986]). We note that DOI is not a proper party (see NY City Charter §§ 396, 803). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or about July 26, 2006, which granted the motion of defendants New York City Department of Education (DOE) and New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s causes of action accrued, at the latest, when she was dismissed from her position as a tenured teacher with the New York City public school system (see Matter of McCain v Fernandez, 226 AD2d 380, 381 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 806 [1996]), more than seven years before she commenced the action. Accordingly, the action is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law § 3813 (2-b) (see North Salem Cent. School Dist. v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 1 AD3d 418, 419 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 620 [2004]). The action is also barred by the judgment in DOE’s favor in a prior federal proceeding that also involved plaintiffs termination of employment (see Thomas v City of New York, 239 AD2d 180 [1997]; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17, 20 [1985], affd 68 NY2d 702 [1986]). We note that DOI is not a proper party (see NY City Charter §§ 396, 803). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 568, 843 N.Y.S.2d 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siino-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack