Siino v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y.

Siino v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y. 2007 NY Slip Op 08105 [44 AD3d 568] October 30, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Carolyn Jane Siino, Appellant,
v
Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

—[*1] Carolyn Jane Siino, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Drake A. Colley of counsel, for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered on or about July 26, 2006, which granted the motion of defendants New York City Department of Education (DOE) and New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's causes of action accrued, at the latest, when she was dismissed from her position as a tenured teacher with the New York City public school system (see Matter of McCain v Fernandez, 226 AD2d 380, 381 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 806 [1996]), more than seven years before she commenced the action. Accordingly, the action is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law § 3813 (2-b) (see North Salem Cent. School Dist. v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 1 AD3d 418, 419 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 620 [2004]). The action is also barred by the judgment in DOE's favor in a prior federal proceeding that also involved plaintiff's termination of employment (see Thomas v City of New [*2]York, 239 AD2d 180 [1997]; Pauk v Board of Trustees of City Univ. of N.Y., 111 AD2d 17, 20 [1985], affd 68 NY2d 702 [1986]). We note that DOI is not a proper party (see NY City Charter §§ 396, 803). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.