ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED IN COMPOSING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

Mar 13, 2026

A CPLR Article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner

An employee [Petitioner] of the New York City Department of Correction [DOC] was served with disciplinary charges, which disciplinary charges were sustained by a DOC human resources representative. Subsequently Petitioner executed a waiver of his right to a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75.

Petitioner then commenced the instant to CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order compelling DOC to submit his disciplinary case to the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] for adjudication pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. 

Supreme Court granted Petitioner's motions and denied DOC's cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner's Article 78 action. DOC appealed the Supreme Court's determinations. 

The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's order and judgment, on the law, with costs, granted DOC's petition and dismissed Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding.

Citing Matter of Kaneev v City of New York Envtl. Control Bd., 149 AD3d 742, the Appellate Division explained that a proceeding initiated pursuant to CPLR Article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner. 

In the instant matter the Appellate Division noted that Petitioner executed the waiver on February 11, 2021, and DOC's labor relations representative upheld the disciplinary charges against the Petitioner on August 4, 2021. Since Petitioner did not commence the instant proceeding until September 1, 2022, the Appellate Division held that Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding was time-barre, citing CPLR 217(1).

In the words of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court "should have granted DOC's cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner's Article 78 action on the ground that the proceeding was time-barred" and that "The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of the foregoing". 

Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.




Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, 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.

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.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com