Druyan v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 28 May 2015
• Docket Number: 15258, 400105/13
• Parties: In re Jocelyn DRUYAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

128 A.D.3d 617
10 N.Y.S.3d 210
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04568

In re Jocelyn DRUYAN, Petitioner–Appellant
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

15258, 400105/13

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

May 28, 2015.

10 N.Y.S.3d 210

Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Michael J. Del Piano of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.

MOSKOWITZ, J.P., DeGRASSE, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ.

Opinion

128 A.D.3d 617

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 22, 2014, which denied the amended petition

128 A.D.3d 618

seeking to annul respondents' determination, dated on or about June 15, 2011, terminating petitioner from her position as a probationary teacher, and granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the amended petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's request,

10 N.Y.S.3d 211

made under the interest of justice standard set forth in CPLR 306–b, for an extension of time to serve the petition and amended petition personally upon the respondents. Petitioner did not seek an extension of time until after the expiration of the four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217[1] ), and she failed to provide an excuse for the delay or for failing to timely serve respondents (see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 105–106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 [2001] ). Her pro se status is not a reasonable excuse (see Matter of Ruine v. Hines, 57 A.D.3d 369, 370, 871 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept.2008] ). In addition, the petition lacks a meritorious claim (see ...