Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Prasanna W. GOONEWARDENA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HUNTER COLLEGE, et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided: May 22, 2007

ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, WILLIAMS, GONZALEZ, KAVANAGH, JJ. Prasanna W. Goonewardena, appellant pro se. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York (Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), entered January 13, 2006, dismissing this proceeding as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 An article 78 proceeding must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding (CPLR 217 [1] ).   Petitioner seeks to overturn the October 1, 2003 decision of the college president that suspended him.   This proceeding was commenced in July 2005.   The failure to proceed within four months required dismissal, notwithstanding petitioner's ongoing correspondence with CUNY regarding his medical documentation as a request for reconsideration.   Such a request does not toll the four-month statute of limitations (see Lubin v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 974, 471 N.Y.S.2d 256, 459 N.E.2d 481 [1983] ), even when an agency takes it under review or negotiates with a petitioner over modification of the administrative determination (Matter of Seidner v. Town of Colonie, Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 79 A.D.2d 751, 752, 434 N.Y.S.2d 800 [1980], affd. 55 N.Y.2d 613, 446 N.Y.S.2d 249, 430 N.E.2d 1302 [1981] ).

 In any event, petitioner's claims are without merit.   The Committee determined that the suspension would remain in effect until petitioner could document that he was receiving psychiatric treatment from a licensed psychiatrist acceptable to the college, and that he posed no threat to himself or others.   Based on CUNY's duty to protect other students and staff on its campuses, it was reasonable to find the documentation submitted inadequate (see Matter of Ono v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 12 A.D.3d 299, 785 N.Y.S.2d 76 [2004] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.