Todras v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Todras v. City of New York

11 A.D.3d 383, 784 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12465

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 383 (Todras v. City of New York) 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

Todras v. City of New York, 11 A.D.3d 383, 784 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered June 19, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint as [384]*384time-barred, and order, same court and Justice, entered November 13, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sues to recover back pay, pension contributions and other contributions that would have been made on his behalf, as a New York City public school teacher, had he not been terminated and denied line of duty injury status by defendant Board of Education. Inasmuch as plaintiffs claims are fundamentally premised upon the contention that the administrative determinations terminating his employment and denying him line of duty injury status were wrongful, they should have been brought in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Leon v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 240 AD2d 186 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 812 [1997]), and were time-barred, having been brought beyond the applicable four-month statutory period. Finally, plaintiffs submission in support of renewal did not set forth circumstances unknown to him at the time of the original motion and, in any event, was not material to the dispositive issue of whether his claims were time-barred.

Plaintiffs remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered June 19, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint as [384]*384time-barred, and order, same court and Justice, entered November 13, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sues to recover back pay, pension contributions and other contributions that would have been made on his behalf, as a New York City public school teacher, had he not been terminated and denied line of duty injury status by defendant Board of Education. Inasmuch as plaintiffs claims are fundamentally premised upon the contention that the administrative determinations terminating his employment and denying him line of duty injury status were wrongful, they should have been brought in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Leon v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 240 AD2d 186 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 812 [1997]), and were time-barred, having been brought beyond the applicable four-month statutory period. Finally, plaintiffs submission in support of renewal did not set forth circumstances unknown to him at the time of the original motion and, in any event, was not material to the dispositive issue of whether his claims were time-barred.

Plaintiffs remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 383, 784 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todras-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack