Opinion
May 16, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We find that the proceeding brought by the petitioner, which was properly found by the Supreme Court to constitute a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, e.g., Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241), was time-barred, because the petitioner failed to commence it within four months of July 11, 1991, the date the respondent's dean officially notified her of her dismissal from the school (see, CPLR 217; Gertler v. Goodgold, 107 A.D.2d 481, affd 66 N.Y.2d 946; Matter of Biondo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 N.Y.2d 832). We note that the petitioner's attempt to circumvent the four-month Statute of Limitations period by seeking to compel her reinstatement instead of seeking review of her dismissal pursuant to CPLR article 78 is of no moment (see, e.g., Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 70 N.Y.2d 193, 202-203). Moreover, the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim that she was suffering from "severe depression" at the time her claim had accrued, which, if adequately proven, may have tolled the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 208; cf., Barnes v. County of Onondaga, 65 N.Y.2d 664 ; Stackrow v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriter's Assn., 115 A.D.2d 883, 884-885).
In any event, on the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent acted in good faith and not arbitrarily, for reasons stated by Justice Shaw in his written decision dated June 17, 1992 (see also, Matter of Mu Ch. v. Colgate Univ., 176 A.D.2d 11; Matter of Beilis v. Albany Med. Coll., 136 A.D.2d 42, 44). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.