ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

July 18, 2012

Request for reconsideration of an administrative decision does not toll the statute of limitation


Request for reconsideration of an administrative decision does not toll the statute of limitation
Lavin v Lawrence, 54 AD3d 412

The Nassau County Civil Service Commission disqualified Andrew Lavin for appointment to a position as a Nassau County Police Officer on August 8.

The Appellate Division dismissed Lavin’s challenge to the Commission’s decision as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 217(1). The court said that the Commission’s decision became final and binding upon him on August 22, at the latest, when Lavin’s attorney received a letter from the Commission indicating that that it had reviewed the Lavin's “submissions in response to the original disqualification notice and adhered to that earlier determination.”

Noting that an individual’s request for additional time to take an administrative appeal and the Commission's review of the letters of recommendation sent by the individual did not act to toll the statute of limitations, the Appellate Division ruled that Lavin’s appeal filed on January 4 of the following year was untimely.

In contrast to the legal effect of an individual merely submitting a “request for reconsideration,” assume that the administrative body actually agrees to reconsider the matter and thereafter issues a new determination. In such a situation the statute of limitations will begin running from the date of the new “final determination.” This is the case even if the new “final determination” confirms the original administrative decision [see Raykowski v NYC DOT, 259 A.D.2d 367].

The full text of the Lavin decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_06644.htm

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case 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.
NYPPL Blogger 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.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com