You are here: / / Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute...
, ,

Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations

The First Department explained that when a notice of termination of an at-will employee is ambiguous with respect to finality, the ambiguity is construed against the employer and the four-month statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding is not triggered:

Ordinarily, where the employment of an at-will employee, like petitioner, is terminated, the four-month statute of limitations applicable in article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217) begins to run from the date of the termination, notwithstanding the availability of optional administrative review proceedings … . However, where an administrative agency “create[s]; []; ambiguity and [the]; impression of nonfinality,” that ambiguity regarding finality is to be resolved against the agency … .

* * * We find that, notwithstanding the fact that the letter otherwise conveyed the concrete impact ordinarily associated with finality for statute of limitations purposes …, respondent created sufficient ambiguity as to finality such that the language must be construed against it and the petition must be deemed timely. Matter of Burch v New York City Health & Hosp Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04060, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

You might also like
Allegation Release Procured by Fraud Precluded Dismissal of Complaint
DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR MAY APPLY TO WINDOW FALLING ONTO PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT BUILDING MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED A PRECLUSION ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION PENDING (FIRST DEPT).
Court Did Not Conduct an Adequate “Searching Inquiry” Before Allowed Defendant to Represent Himself—New Trial Ordered
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE COULD BE TRIGGERED BY A PARTY OVER WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
NOTE WITH 12% INTEREST RATE FOR LESS THAN A YEAR WAS USURIOUS.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

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

Petitioner Not Given Adequate Employee Assistance—Determination Annulled—New... In the Absence of a Colloquy Conducted by the Court, the Circumstances Indicated...