ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Failure to satisfy procedural requirements bars considering the merits of a CPLR Article 78 petition challenging the termination of a probationary employee

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Petitioner [Teacher] initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in which she challenged her dismissal from her employment as a probationary teacher. Supreme Court dismissed Teacher's Article 78 petition for a number of procedural reasons and Teacher appealed.

Supreme Court dismissed Teacher's petition after determining that Teacher had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The decision notes that with respect to the "ineffective" performance rating in her evaluation, her administrative appeal was still pending at the time she had filed her Article 78 petition. The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court ruling with respect to Teacher's failure to exhaust her administrative remedy.

Supreme Court had found that Teacher's challenge to the discontinuance of her probationary employment status was time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling concerning the issue of Teacher's failure to file a timely Article 78 petition, explaining that statute of limitations to challenge the decision to terminate her employment as a probationary employee expired on December 12, four months after the effective date of her termination the previous August 11.

Addressing Teacher's motion "to renew," the Appellate Division explained that such a motion must be based upon new facts, i.e., facts that were not offered on Teacher's prior motion "to renew" and that would change the prior determination. As Teacher presented no new relevant facts in the motion to renew she had submitted to Supreme Court, the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's refusal to grant her motion to renew, opining that Teacher's motion to renew failed to meet this standard. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_05141.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on October 02, 2020 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0174 secs (new cache)