From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crichlow v. NYS Office of Mental Health

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 11, 2016
136 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

204 251548/13.

02-11-2016

In re Mark CRICHLOW, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NYS OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Mark Crichlow, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.


Mark Crichlow, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered May 28, 2014, denying the petition seeking, inter alia, to annul respondents' determination, dated September 18, 2000, which terminated petitioner's employment, granting respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that petitioner failed to serve the notice of petition and petition upon the agency respondents, as required by CPLR 307(2). The failure to properly effectuate service on, and acquire personal jurisdiction over, the agency respondents warrants dismissal (see Matter of Vargas v. State of New York, 95 A.D.3d 588, 589, 943 N.Y.S.2d 533 1st Dept.2012 ). Respondents did not concede to the court's jurisdiction by seeking an adjournment, and the cross motion to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds was properly brought prior to the time that the answer was required to be served (see CPLR 3211[a]8 and [e]; see also CPLR 320[b] ).

Furthermore, the petition, brought more than 13 years after petitioner's termination, is time barred (see CPLR 2171 ). Petitioner failed to establish entitlement to a tolling of the time within which to bring this proceeding, as there is no “evidence that [petitioner] was lulled into inaction by [respondents] in order to allow the statute of limitations to lapse” (East Midtown Plaza Hous. Co. v. City of New York, 218 A.D.2d 628, 628, 631 N.Y.S.2d 38 1st Dept.1995 ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Crichlow v. NYS Office of Mental Health

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 11, 2016
136 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Crichlow v. NYS Office of Mental Health

Case Details

Full title:In re Mark Crichlow, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NYS Office of Mental Health…

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

Date published: Feb 11, 2016

Citations

136 A.D.3d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
25 N.Y.S.3d 166
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1050