Asking an administrative body to reconsider its earlier decision does not revive an expired statute of limitation without a fresh examination of the matter based on newly presented evidence
The Board of Education denied a teacher’s request for family health insurance benefits in May 2008, explaining that she was not eligible for coverage under the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement.
In May 2012, the teacher submitted another request for family health insurance benefits. This request was, again, denied by the School District in August 2012. In November 2012 the teacher commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the School District’s decision.
In its answer to the teacher's petition the School District contended that the proceeding was untimely, arguing that the second request for family health insurance benefits did not renew or revive the statute of limitations. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the teacher’s Article 78 petition was timely and the School District appealed.
The Appellate Division, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, ruled that the School District was correct.
The court explained that as a general rule, a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding on the petitioner and that the initial determination controls "unless the agency conducts a fresh and complete examination of the matter based on newly presented evidence.” The Appellate Division concluded that the August 2012 determination did not serve to revive the limitations period, as the School District adhered to its initial determination without a fresh examination based on newly presented evidence.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that “this proceeding is barred by the four-month statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 217(1).”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: