From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Board of Educ, Katonah-Lewisboro v. Bd., Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1991
174 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 24, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the action is one to "vindicate a public interest" and thus the plaintiff was not required to file a notice of claim within three months of the accrual of the action pursuant to Education Law § 3813 (1) (see, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v City School Dist., 59 N.Y.2d 262; Union Free School Dist. No. 6 v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 N.Y.2d 371; Valhalla Union Free School Dist. v Somers Cent. School Dist., 98 Misc.2d 365).

However, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the public interest exception does not permit the commencement of actions against a school district after the expiration of the one-year period of limitation of Education Law § 3813 (2-b). The instant action was commenced more than one year after the period of limitation had expired. Therefore, the action was properly dismissed as time-barred. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Board of Educ, Katonah-Lewisboro v. Bd., Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1991
174 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Board of Educ, Katonah-Lewisboro v. Bd., Educ

Case Details

Full title:BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE KATONAH-LEWISBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 24, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Quattrone v. Erie 2 Chautauqua-Cattaraugus

The court's review of this and other pertinent authority reveals that the "public interest exception" to the…

Paul Eldridge v. Carmel Central School Dist

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to…