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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

An ambiguity as to the finality of an administrative determination tolls the running of the statute of limitations

An ambiguity as to the finality of an administrative determination tolls the running of the statute of limitations
Matter of Hasberry v New York City Dept. of Educ., et. al. and the New York City Department of Education, et. al., 61 AD3d 523

Marco Viola and Linda Branch, employed by Thomas Buses, Inc., filed applications with the New York City Department of Education [DOE] to become certified bus drivers. On June 19, 2006 DOE wrote Thomas, sending copies to both Viola and Branch, that both applications had been denied. As there was no administrative appeal to the Commissioner available to the disappointed applicants, both filed Article 78 petitions challenging DOE?s decision on November 27, 2006.

Supreme Court granted DOE?s motion to dismiss both Branch?s and Viola?s petitions as untimely. Although the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court?s ruling with respect to Branch, it reinstated Viola?s petition.

The resolution of these appeals turned on whether these petitions were filed after the controlling statute of limitations had expired.

The Appellate Division explained that Branch?s claims were time-barred because she had not commenced her action within the four-month period permitted for filing an Article 78 petition.

The court said that DOE?s June 19, 2006 letters constituted ?a definitive position on the issue that inflict[ed] actual, concrete injury," and there was no further administrative action that either Branch or Viola could take. In this instance the four-month statute of limitations began running when Branch?s and Viola?s receipt of the June 19, 2006 letters. Although both filed their Article 78 petitions on November 27, 2006, some five months later, the Appellate Division held that although the action was time-barred with respect to Branch, such was not the case with respect to Viola.

The decision indicates that there was an element that was significantly different in Viola?s case.

The Appellate Division noted DOE had sent Viola a second letter, dated September 13, 2006, concerning the matter. This second letter, said the court, ?creating ambiguity as to the finality of its June 19, 2006 determination? with respect to Viola. Accordingly the running of the statute of limitations was tolled insofar as Viola's claims were concerned and thus his filing his Article 78 petition on November 27, 2006 was deemed timely.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 05, 2010 (boomark / email).