Courts do not have discretion to hear an untimely Article 75 action challenging an administrative determination
2015 NY Slip Op 05406, Appellate Division, First Department
Supreme Court denied a petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award upholding an administrative determination made after a hearing conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the Employee's union and the employer terminating the employee from her position and confirmed the arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly held this special proceeding, commenced pursuant to CPLR Article 78, was in the nature of a CPLR article 75 proceeding challenging the award rendered by the arbitrator pursuant to the grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement with Petitioner's union.
Accordingly, Supreme Court had properly dismissed the petition on the ground that it was untimely filed pursuant to the applicable 90-day statute of limitations set out in CPLR §7511[a]), based on Petitioner's admission that she received formal notice of the arbitration award on July 6, 2012.
The fact that Petitioner's pro sestatus in this action, said the Appellate Division, is not a basis to reach the merits of her claim.
An individual who is acting as his or her own attorney in a court action is said to be acting “pro se.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: