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: ANNA V. LEWANDOWSKI, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. CLYDE–SAVANNAH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, CLYDE–SAVANNAH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, THERESA L. PULOS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF THE CLYDE–SAVANNAH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CRAIG PAWLAK, PRINCIPAL OF THE CLYDE–SAVANNAH JUNIOR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking annulment of respondent Clyde–Savannah Central School District Board of Education's determination to discontinue her probationary appointment on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion. Petitioner sought, inter alia, reinstatement to her probationary teaching position with back pay.
We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to serve pursuant to Education Law § 3813(1) a notice of claim within three months after the claim arose. Service of a notice of claim is a “condition precedent to bringing an action against a school district or a board of education” (Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 547), and such service was required here. We conclude that petitioner has not commenced a special proceeding in the nature of mandamus seeking to vindicate a judicially enforceable right conferred on her by the law (cf. Matter of Speis v. Penfield Cent. Schs., 114 AD3d 1181, 1183; Matter of Brunecz v City of Dunkirk Bd. of Educ., 23 AD3d 1126, 1127; Matter of Piaggone v Board of Educ., Floral Park–Bellrose Union Free Sch. Dist., 92 A.D.2d 106, 108). Therefore, contrary to petitioner's contention, this case “is not exempt from the notice of claim requirement” (Matter of Silvernail v Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown, 40 AD3d 1004, 1005).
In light of our conclusion, we do not address petitioner's remaining contentions.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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: CA 15–01999
Decided: October 07, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)