Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
— IN RE: Rena Susan Sanders, Petitioner–Appellant, v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
_
Appeals from orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling–Cohan, J.), entered January 16, 2014 and February 27, 2014, deemed appeals from judgment, same court and Justice, entered March 17, 2014, dismissing the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to, among other things, annul respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development's (HPD) determination, dated December 21, 2007, which discharged petitioner from her employment, and, so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly dismissed the proceeding as time-barred. Petitioner failed to commence this proceeding within four months of receiving notice of her termination (CPLR 217[1]; see Matter of Vadell v City of New York Health & Hosps. Corp., 233 A.D.2d 224, 225 [1st Dept 1996] ). Petitioner received notice by letter on December 26, 2007, and did not commence this proceeding until November 5, 2012—almost five years later.
This proceeding is not timely under CPLR 205(a). Pursuant to that section, this proceeding is only timely if it would have been timely when petitioner commenced a federal action. Petitioner commenced a federal action on April 24, 2009, approximately a year after the time limit for commencing this proceeding. Accordingly, this proceeding would not have been timely at the time of commencement of the federal action.
Even if the four-month statute of limitations in this proceeding did not begin to run until August 14, 2008, when HPD purportedly rejected petitioner's demand for a hearing, this proceeding is still untimely, as petitioner did not commence it or the federal action within four months of that date.
The court correctly applied a four-month statute of limitations to all of petitioner's claims in this proceeding challenging HPD's determination (see Butler v. Wing, 275 A.D.2d 273, 275–276 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 770 [2000] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
_
DEPUTY CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1477 5 1477 6
Decided: April 09, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)