Santostefano v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016–10064

• Decision Date: 27 December 2017
• Docket Number: Index No. 600777/16,2016–10064
• Citation: 65 N.Y.S.3d 785 (Mem),156 A.D.3d 926
• Parties: Guy SANTOSTEFANO, appellant, v. MIDDLE COUNTRY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

156 A.D.3d 926
65 N.Y.S.3d 785 (Mem)

Guy SANTOSTEFANO, appellant,
v.
MIDDLE COUNTRY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., respondents.

2016–10064
Index No. 600777/16

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

Submitted—November 27, 2017
December 27, 2017

Scott Michael Mishkin, P.C., Islandia, N.Y. (Kyle T. Pulis of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Thomas M. Volz, PLLC, Nesconset, N.Y. (Michael G. Vigliotta and Anthony S. DeLuca of counsel), for respondents.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

156 A.D.3d 926

In an action to vacate a settlement agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated August 22, 2016, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint and denied his cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was employed as a teacher within the defendant Middle Country Central School District (hereinafter the District). In May 2015, disciplinary charges were filed against the plaintiff pursuant to Education Law § 3020–a. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the District resolving the charges. Pursuant to the terms of the

156 A.D.3d 927

settlement agreement, the plaintiff resigned from the District effective August 6, 2015, and the District withdrew the charges.

In January 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to vacate the settlement agreement, alleging, in effect, that the terms of the settlement agreement permitting the District to disclose to the plaintiff's prospective employers that the plaintiff was brought up on disciplinary charges had caused harm to the plaintiff's career. The plaintiff also alleged, among other things, that he was fraudulently induced into executing the settlement agreement. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, based upon the plaintiff's failure to timely serve a notice of claim, based upon documentary evidence, and for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and denied the

65 N.Y.S.3d 786

plaintiff's cross motion. The plaintiff appeals.

"In general, the service of a timely notice of claim pursuant to Education Law § 3813(1) is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action or proceeding against a school district, and failure to comply with this requirement is a fatal defect" ( Matter of Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc. v. Ossining Union Free Sch. Dist., 121 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 995 N.Y.S.2d 212 ; see Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 547, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241 ; School Aid Specialists, LLC v. Board of Educ. of Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 130 A.D.3d 1006, 13 N.Y.S.3d 835 ). "Although the notice of claim requirement does not apply when a litigant seeks only equitable relief, or commences a proceeding to vindicate a public interest" ( Matter of McGovern v. Mount Pleasant Cent. Sch. Dist., 114...