Board of Education of the Middle Country Central School District v. Board of Education of the East Meadow Union Free School District, 2007 NY Slip Op 34169(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/19/2007)
| Decision Date | 19 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | Motion Sequence No.: 001 MG,0017950/2001 |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 34169 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE MIDDLE COUNTRY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MIDDLE COUNTRY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE EAST MEADOW UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EAST MEADOW UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SACHEM SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SACHEM SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
ORDERED, that the motion (motion sequence number 001) by plaintiff pursuant to CPLR §3025(b) for leave to serve an amended complaint is determined as set forth herein.
This is a consolidated action against defendants for tuition reimbursement relative to certain children placed in foster care outside of their home school district for the years 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000.1 Plaintiff commenced an action on June 28, 1999 against Board of Education of the East Meadow Union Free School. District and East Meadow Union Free School District ("East Meadow") for tuition reimbursement for the subject children for the 1997-1998 school year. Issue was joined in that action by the service of an Answer on or about December 22, 1999. Thereafter, on or about June 29, 2000, plaintiff commenced an action against the Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District and Sachem Central School District ("Sachem") for tuition reimbursement for the subject children for the 1998-1999 school year. Issue was joined by the service of an Answer on or about November 22, 2000. Finally, on or about August 2, 2001, plaintiff commenced an action against both Sachem and East Meadow for tuition reimbursement for the subject children for the 1999-2000 school year. Issue was joined as to East Meadow by its service of an Answer on or about September 11, 2001 and as to Sachem by its service of an Answer and Cross-Claims on or about October 18, 2001. East Meadow served Cross-Claims on or about October 23, 2001. By So-Ordered Stipulation dated May 24, 2007, the parties agreed to consolidate all three actions under the within index number.
Plaintiff now seeks an Order, inter alia, adding Sachem as defendants in the tuition reimbursement action relative to the subject children for the 1997-1998 school year. Plaintiff also seeks to add East Meadow as defendants in the tuition reimbursement action relative to the subject children for the 1998-1999 school year. Plaintiff argues that the motion should be granted because the content of the amendment is not prejudicial to the parties and that it can bring the same claims it seeks to add in a separate lawsuit. However, plaintiff argues that since all parties in this proceeding are public school districts, that to deny the motion would cause additional cost to the taxpayers of all three school districts. Plaintiff asserts that defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendments because all the claims arise from the same factual basis asserted in the original complaints seeking the same tuition amounts for the same children. Additionally, plaintiff states that defendants will be given the opportunity to submit answers to the amended pleadings and can assert any affirmative defenses they choose. Finally, although plaintiff recognizes there has been some delay in seeking to amend the pleadings, it argues that such delay alone is not a sufficient basis to deny the motion.
Defendant East Meadow opposes the motion on the ground that the proposed amendment is barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, East Meadow argues that plaintiff is seeking to assert a time barred additional claim for tuition reimbursement for the 1998-1999 school year. East Meadow asserts that the claim is time barred under Education Law §3813 because it was not commenced within one year after the cause of action arose. East Meadow acknowledges that Education Law §3813 provides that the cause of action for tuition reimbursement arises when a demand for payment is denied, and plaintiff never served a demand for tuition reimbursement for the 1998-1999 school year. However, East Meadow argues that since no such demand was made, it did not have the opportunity to deny the amount claimed, and plaintiff should not be permitted unlimited time to serve a demand and certainly not seven years following the conclusion of the school year at issue. Additionally, East Meadow argues that the claim cannot be saved from the statute of limitations under the relation back doctrine because East Meadow and Sachem are not united in interest and East Meadow should not have known the action would have been brought against them as well. Therefore, East Meadow argues the motion for leave to amend the pleadings should be denied.
Sachem has not interposed any opposition to the motion and according to plaintiff, has consented to the amendment as it relates to them.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial