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: Mark Steven AGOADO, et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondents to conduct formal performance reviews in accordance with Board of Education By-Law 5.3.4A, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated April 6, 2000, which, upon the granting of the respondents' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Before commencing a proceeding in the nature of mandamus, it is necessary to make a demand and await a refusal. The Statute of Limitations begins to run on the date of the refusal and expires four months thereafter. The period in which action is required to be taken cannot be indefinitely extended by delaying the demand. An allegedly aggrieved party who does not proceed promptly and make a formal demand may be charged with laches (see, Austin v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N.Y., 5 N.Y.2d 430, 442, 186 N.Y.S.2d 1, 158 N.E.2d 681; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v. Board of Educ., Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist., 239 A.D.2d 415, 416, 657 N.Y.S.2d 439).
There is no evidence that the petitioners formally demanded appeals of their unsatisfactory ratings in accordance with Board of Education By-Law 5.3.4A. In any event, even if the petitioners made formal demands, their delay in bringing this proceeding was so extensive that it is barred by the doctrine of laches. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 16, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)