Queensborough Community College of City of New York v. State Human Rights Appeals Bd.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1977 |
| Citation | 41 N.Y.2d 926,394 N.Y.S.2d 625,363 N.E.2d 349 |
| Parties | , 363 N.E.2d 349, 20 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 538 In the Matter of QUEENSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF the CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL BOARD et al., Respondents, and Ethne E. K. Marenco, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Everett E. Lewis, New York City, for appellant.
W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Mary P. Bass and L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Order affirmed, with costs.
The applicable statute provides that: "Any complaint filed pursuant to this section must be so filed within one year after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice" (Executive Law, § 297, subd. 5). The alleged discriminatory practice was the manifested decision not to reappoint complainant. Hence, there is no basis for reasoning that the limitation did not start to run until complainant had completed her current term of employment. The act of giving complainant notice that she would not be reappointed gave rise immediately to a "cause of action", as the Appellate Division observed, and therefore started the running of the limitation period. The analogy to Statutes of Limitation in general civil practice would lead to the same conclusion (CPLR 203, subd. (a); 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ. Prac., par. 203.01). Nor is the limitation tolled by the invocation of grievance procedure which is merely an alternative remedy. In Federal practice under the Federal statutes a similar conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court (International Union v. Robbins & Meyers, 429 U.S. 229, 233-240, 97 S.Ct. 441, 50 L.Ed.2d 427). BREITEL, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE, JJ., concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrd v. Long Island Lighting Co.
...Division of Human Rights, 56 N.Y.2d 257, 451 N.Y.S.2d 700, 436 N.E.2d 1301 (1982); Queensborough Community College v. State Human Rights Appeal Board, 41 N.Y.2d 926, 394 N.Y.S.2d 625, 363 N.E.2d 349 (1977). Here, where the court finds that the nub of plaintiff's seniority claim is an adjust......
-
Reich v. Dow Badische Co.
...Section 297(5) of the New York Executive Law. See Executive Law § 297(1), (5); Matter of Queensborough Community College v. State Human Rights Appeal Board, 1977, 41 N.Y.2d 926, 394 N.Y.S.2d 625, 363 N.E.2d 349.) Appellant contends that he had been from the inception of his complaint to the......
-
Haas v. Lockheed Martin
...Riverside Mfg. Co., 169 Ga.App. 18, 311 S.E.2d 223, 224-25 (1983); Queensborough Cmty. College of City Univ. of N.Y. v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 N.Y.2d 926, 394 N.Y.S.2d 625, 363 N.E.2d 349, 349 (1977) (memorandum) (pre-dates Ricks). See also Clarke v. Living Scriptures, Inc., 114 ......
-
Fair Hous. Justice Ctr., Inc. v. JDS Dev. LLC
...v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., State Div. of Human Rights , 49 A.D.2d 766, 372 N.Y.S.2d 722, 723 (1975), aff'd , 41 N.Y.2d 926, 363 N.E.2d 349, 394 N.Y.S.2d 625 (1977) ), aff'd , 462 F. App'x 38 (2d Cir. 2012). Since the alleged discriminatory act in this case is Plaintiff's testers' dis......