Statute of limitations for challenging a personnel decision begins running when the individual is notified of the final and binding determination

To contact us Click HERE

Statute of limitations for challenging a personnel decisionbegins running when the individual is notified of the final and binding determination
McCarry v Purchase Coll., State Univ. of N.Y., 2012 NY Slip Op 06026,Appellate Division, Second Department
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging thedecision of the President of the State University of New York College atPurchase not to reappoint an assistant professor to the Purchase faculty,Supreme Court annulled the President’s determination and remitted the matter to for a de novo review and a new determination. Supreme Court alsodirected the retroactive reinstatement of the faculty member with fullcompensation and benefits pending the de novo review.
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s rulings“on the law."
Pointing out that the assistant professor’s challenge to thePresident’s decision was time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations,the court explained that the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR §217(1)began to run on the date that the challenged determination became final andbinding.*
Citing Matter of Village of Westbury v Department ofTransp. of State of N.Y., 75 NY2d 62, the Appellate Division said that"A determination generally becomes binding when … the agency has reached adefinitive position that inflicts concrete injury to the aggrieved party thatcannot be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrativeaction” and the individual has been advised of that determination.
In this instance it was undisputed that the assistantprofessor commenced his Article 78 action more than four months after receivingnotice that he had not been reappointed to his teaching position.
Significantly, the court said that the limitations perioddid not run from the date upon which the assistant professor's fixed-duration employment contractautomatically ended but rather commenced to run when he received notice of the“final determination” that he would not be reappointed to the college faculty.
Further, said the court, even had the faculty member Article78 action “been timely commenced, the record demonstrates that the [CollegePresident] substantially complied with the internal rules of Purchase College,State University of New York and the determination was not arbitrary andcapricious."
* N.B. A request to “reconsider” afinal and binding administrative determination does not toll the running of theStatute of Limitations [Lavin v Lawrence, 54 AD3d 412].
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06026.htm