CPLR Article 78 requires that a challenge to an administrative determination be commenced within four months of the time the determination becoming "final and binding upon the petitioner." An administrative determination becomes final and binding for the purpose of trigging the running of the statute of limitations when the determination "has its impact" on the petitioner.
In this instance the petitioner [Plaintiff] commenced her CPLR Article 78 action seeking judicial review an administrative determination by her employer [Town] that classified her as an employee hired after December 31, 2014 . This determination made her subject to a 15% health insurance premium contribution requirement set out in the controlling Taylor Law collective bargaining agreement.
Town moved to dismiss Plaintiff's petition as untimely, well as for other reasons. The court concurred with the Town's argument that as its administrative decision was made, in effect, on December 31, 2014 , Plaintiff's Article 78 action commenced more than two years later was untimely and dismissed her petition. Plaintiff appealed the court's ruling.
The Appellate Division opined that an administrative determination regarding payment of salary or pay adjustments is final and binding, and a challenge thereto accrues, when the employee receives a check or salary payment reflecting the administrative determination, noting that the new, now required 15% health insurance premium contribution was reflected in Plaintiff's first paycheck issued in April 2015, more than two years prior to the commencement of this Article 78 action.*
Addressing Plaintiff's argument that her Article 78 was timely under the "continuous wrong doctrine," the Appellate Division, citing Selkirk v State of New York
As the Town had decided that Plaintiff was an employee hired after December 31, 2014, triggering her being required to pay a 15% health insurance premium contribution, Plaintiff first felt the impact of this administrative determination upon receiving her first paycheck issued to her in April 2015, more than two years before Plaintiff filed her Article 78 petition, the Appellate Division opined that "[e]ach subsequent paycheck deduction 'represent[ed] the consequences of [that allegedly] wrongful act in the form of continuing damages,' and was not an independent wrong in itself."
As the Town had decided that Plaintiff was an employee hired after December 31, 2014, triggering her being required to pay a 15% health insurance premium contribution, Plaintiff first felt the impact of this administrative determination upon receiving her first paycheck issued to her in April 2015, more than two years before Plaintiff filed her Article 78 petition, the Appellate Division opined that "[e]ach subsequent paycheck deduction 'represent[ed] the consequences of [that allegedly] wrongful act in the form of continuing damages,' and was not an independent wrong in itself."
Accordingly, the court ruled that the doctrine "does not apply here to toll the statute of limitation and sustained the Supreme Court's determination dismissing Plaintiff's petition as untimely.
* The Appellate Division also noted that Plaintiff's untimely filing of a grievance did not toll the running of the statute of limitations which, for the purposes of perfecting her Article 78 action, commenced when, at the latest, Plaintiff received her first paycheck issued in April 2015.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: