Stepper v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stepper v. Department of Education

98 A.D.3d 915, 950 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A.D.3d 915 (Stepper 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

Stepper v. Department of Education, 98 A.D.3d 915, 950 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered June 27, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the City of New York was an improper party to the action (see e.g. Perez v City of New York, 41 AD3d 378 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 708 [2008]). The motion court also correctly determined that to the extent plaintiff challenged the unsatisfactory rating she received following the 2007-2008 school year, those allegations were time-barred (Education Law § 3813 [2-b]). To the extent plaintiff sought to challenge the unsatisfactory rating she received in 2009, those allegations are barred as a result of her failure to file a notice of claim (Education Law § 3813 [1]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered June 27, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the City of New York was an improper party to the action (see e.g. Perez v City of New York, 41 AD3d 378 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 708 [2008]). The motion court also correctly determined that to the extent plaintiff challenged the unsatisfactory rating she received following the 2007-2008 school year, those allegations were time-barred (Education Law § 3813 [2-b]). To the extent plaintiff sought to challenge the unsatisfactory rating she received in 2009, those allegations are barred as a result of her failure to file a notice of claim (Education Law § 3813 [1]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.3d 915, 950 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stepper-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack