From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quintas v. Pace University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 15, 2005
23 A.D.3d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

7066, 7066A.

November 15, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered August 12, 2004, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 12, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the July 12, 2004 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The Barrisons, New York (Earl Barrison of counsel), for appellant.

Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel LLP, New York (Susan Jacquemot of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Williams and Malone, JJ., concur.


Plaintiff's first three causes of action, asserting damage claims, premised on contract, tort and retaliation theories, for defendant University's determination to deny his application for a distinguished professorship, should have been brought in the context of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and are accordingly governed by a four-month limitations period ( see Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92). Inasmuch as they were brought subsequent to the expiration of the applicable statutory period, they are time-barred. Moreover, they failed to state any cognizable grounds for relief. Plaintiff did not identify any contractual provision pursuant to which he would have been entitled to a distinguished professorship ( see id.). His negligence claim was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 11; § 29 [6]; Maas v. Cornell Univ., 253 AD2d 1, affd 94 NY2d 87). His claim that the challenged denial was retaliatory did not set forth the requisite connection between the denial and protected conduct on plaintiff's part ( see Labor Law §§ 215; 740 [2]).

Finally, plaintiff failed adequately to allege facts warranting the inference that the challenged denial was a discriminatory employment action actually motivated by age ( see Executive Law § 296). The University's requirement that distinguished professors teach 12 credits annually, which plaintiff concededly would not have been able to satisfy, is applicable regardless of age. Further, the challenged denial was also permissibly predicated on plaintiff's unremarkable teaching performance ratings.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Quintas v. Pace University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 15, 2005
23 A.D.3d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Quintas v. Pace University

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS V. QUINTAS, Appellant, v. PACE UNIVERSITY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 15, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8656
804 N.Y.S.2d 67

Citing Cases

Zutrau ex rel. Ice Sys., Inc. v. Ice Sys., Inc.

However, retaliatory discharge claims under Labor Law § 215 have not been limited to manual laborers. Other…

Williams v. Leisure Knoll Ass'n, Inc.

As to the cause of action for breach of contract, the business judgment rule is not a defense to a cause of…