Opinion
08-10-2016
Debra SAVVIS, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., respondents.
Solomon & Associates, P.C., Staten Island, NY (Robert Solomon of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Richard Dearing and Amanda Sue Nichols of counsel), for respondent New York City Department of Education.
Solomon & Associates, P.C., Staten Island, NY (Robert Solomon of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Richard Dearing and Amanda Sue Nichols of counsel), for respondent New York City Department of Education.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of sex and a hostile work environment in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Aliotta, J.), dated July 16, 2014, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve a timely notice of claim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that this action was barred by Education Law § 3813(1), which required the filing of a notice of claim within three months after the accrual of a cause of action, which admittedly was not done (see Agostinello v. Great Neck Union Free Sch. Dist., 102 A.D.3d 638, 958 N.Y.S.2d 166 ; Cavanaugh v. Board of Educ. of Huntington Union Free School Dist., 296 A.D.2d 369, 745 N.Y.S.2d 433 ; Sangermano v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 290 A.D.2d 498, 736 N.Y.S.2d 258 ). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, she was not relieved of the notice of claim requirement on the basis that her action was brought to vindicate a public interest (see Grasso v. Schenectady County Pub. Lib., 30 A.D.3d 814, 817 N.Y.S.2d 186 ; Doyle v. Board of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free School Dist., 230 A.D.2d 820, 646 N.Y.S.2d 842 ; cf. Eldridge v. Carmel Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 82 A.D.3d 1147, 920 N.Y.S.2d 155 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.