Letter from an employer that has an adverse impact on an individual and he or she knows he or she is aggrieved thereby, triggers the running of the relevant Statute of Limitations
Coleman v Prendergast, 2012 NY Slip Op 01814, Appellate Division, Second Department
Coleman v Prendergast, 2012 NY Slip Op 01814, Appellate Division, Second Department
Carl Coleman and his co-petitioners [Coleman] filed a petition pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR Article 78 seeking a court review changes in the qualifications for their positions and a requirement that they take certain examinations.
Noting that such an action must be commenced "within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner," Supreme Court ruled that their petition was untimely.
According to the decision, Coleman received correspondence from the Rockland County Community College in December 2008 advising him that the qualifications for his position as Security Officers at College had changed. As a result he had to take “certain examinations” and the first of the examinations would be held in February 2009.
The Appellate Division noted that “This correspondence was a final and binding determination within the meaning of CPLR 217(1),” explaining that it had an impact upon Coleman and he knew he was aggrieved, whereupon it commenced the running of the statute of limitations.
However, the court noted, Coleman did not commence his Article 78 action until January 2010, which was beyond the applicable four-month statute of limitations of CPLR 217(1).
Thus, said the Appellate Division, “Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the [College’s] motion which was to dismiss the proceeding as time-barred, and dismissed the proceeding.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: