You are here: / / The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be...
, ,

The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be Raised as a Defense—Here the Charges Against a Teacher Were Time-Barred—The Department of Education (DOE) Did Not Demonstrate the Charges Were Criminal (to Which the Three-Year Statute Would Not Have Applied)

The First Department determined the third set of charges brought against petitioner-teacher, alleging the teacher improperly obtained his daughter’s admission to NYC Department of Education (DOE) schools for which she was not zoned, was time-barred.  Although the three-year statute of limitations in the Education Law would not apply had the allegations constituted a crime, the hearing officer did not find the teacher’s conduct to be criminal. The court determined that the first two set of charges against the teacher did not justify termination (the penalty imposed) and remitted the matter for a lesser punishment. The court noted that the statute of limitations in the Education Law need not be raised as a defense:

Supreme Court did not exceed its authority in finding that the third set of charges against petitioner was time-barred. Education Law § 3020-a(1) requires that disciplinary charges against a teacher be brought within three years from the date of the alleged misconduct, unless the alleged misconduct constituted a crime when committed. Petitioner was not required to raise the statutory time limitation set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) as a defense in the disciplinary proceeding. Where, as here, “a statute creates a right unknown at common law, and also establishes a time period within which the right may be asserted, the time limit is . . . a condition attached to the right as distinguished from a [s]tatute of [l]imitations which must be asserted by way of defense” … . Accordingly, DOE had the burden of establishing that it met the time requirement set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) or that the crime exception to the time requirement applied … . DOE failed to meet its burden. Matter of Suker v New York City Board/ Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 04940, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

You might also like
Malicious Prosecution Requires Something More than Merely Reporting an Alleged Incident to Authorities/Uncorroborated, Incredible, Allegations by Plaintiff Did Not Raise a Question of Fact
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO CROSS-EXAMINE A DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT PRIOR UNCHARGED OFFENSES ALLEGEDLY INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE ERROR WAS REVERSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL.
Cause of Action Against Landlord for Nuisance, Based Upon a Noisy Tenant, Does Not Lie Where the Landlord Did Not Create the Nuisance and the Landlord Has Surrendered Control of the Premises to the Tenant
QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ATTORNEY’S FEES DISPUTE WHETHER THERE WAS AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO RETURN THE UNEXHAUSTED PORTION OF THE RETAINER PAID BY PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether ​”Intervening Criminal Act” at Homeless Facility Was Foreseeable
A PLAINTIFF’S STIPULATED SETTLEMENT WITH THE INSURED ACCOMPANIED BY A COVENANT NOT TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT AND AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE INSURED’S CLAIMS AGAINST THE INSURER IS NOT A “RELEASE;” THE INSURER STILL HAS A DUTY TO INDEMNIFY (FIRST DEPT).
Testimony that Bus Company Held to Higher Standard Required Reversal

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Dry-Cleaning Chemical, PERC, Is Not “Petroleum” Within the Meaning... Although a Prima Facie Case of Abuse and Neglect Was Made Out, Father’s...