ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

March 16, 2012

A request for reconsideration of an administrative determination neither extends nor enlarges the statute of limitation for filing a timely Article 78 petition

A request for reconsideration of an administrative determination neither extends nor enlarges the statute of limitation for filing a timely Article 78 petition
Baloy v Kelly, 2012 NY Slip Op 01134, Appellate Division, First Department

The New York City Police Commissioner refused to issue a "good guy" letter authorizing Romeo Baloy to carry firearms upon retirement from the New York Police Department,.

In a letter to Baloy’s wife in August 2006, the Department explained that Baloy’s application for the license was denied because, at the time of his retirement, he was on restrictive duty and ineligible to possess firearms.

Baloy subsequently filed a petiton pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking a court order compelling the Commissioner to issue such a letter to him.

Supreme Court dismissed Baloy’s petition, indicating that the Department’s letter to his wife was a "final and binding" determination and Baloy knew or should have known that he was "aggrieved" by it. Accordingly, the four-month statute of limitations began to run, at the latest, upon receipt of the letter.

The Appellate Division agreed, ruling that Supreme Court  “correctly found” that a letter dated April 24, 2009 from Baloy's attorney was a request for reconsideration of the agency's determination, and thus did not extend the statute of limitations.

Further, said the court, as the letter dated May 6, 2009 from the Department reiterated that Baloy did not obtain a “good guy letter” upon retirement because of his restricted duty status, it was not a "new determination" that would suffice to revive the statute of limitations.

In any event, the Appellate Division said that “The possibility of obtaining administrative relief had been exhausted when [Baloy] retired without a change in his restricted duty status.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01134.htm

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.