Opinion

O'Connor v. Board of Education

  • 11 A.D.3d 616
  • 782 N.Y.S.2d 663
  • 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12208
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Oct 18, 2004
Status
Published
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 53.4%

The opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent dated June 12, 2002, which reassigned the petitioner to a different teaching position, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered September 3, 2003, which, upon renewal, in effect, vacated its prior order entered July 28, 2003, denying the *617 respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice to renew, granted the respondent’s motion, and, upon renewal, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed this proceeding on the grounds that it was time-barred and for failure of the petitioner to file a notice of claim. The petitioner’s claim accrued on or about June 12, 2002, when the determination reassigning her to a new teaching position became “final and binding” (CPLR 217 [1]; see Cahill v New York State Div. of State Police, 304 AD2d 971 [2003]; Matter of Levine v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 272 AD2d 328 [2000]). Since this proceeding was commenced more than six months thereafter, it was untimely.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner did not file a notice of claim (see Education Law § 3813). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, her claim sought to vindicate a private right and thus, the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the commencement of this proceeding (see Sangermano v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 290 AD2d 498 [2002]; Bidnick v Johnson, 253 AD2d 779 [1998]; Peek v Williamsville Bd. of Educ., 221 AD2d 919 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.