From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jeevan P. Padiyar v. Albert Einstein College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 2010
73 A.D.3d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Summary

finding that while plaintiff's complaint was "couched in terms of unlawful discrimination and breach of contract," it was actually a challenge to the university's academic and administrative decisions, thus making it subject to Article 78's statute of limitations

Summary of this case from Doe v. Columbia Univ.

Opinion

No. 2888.

May 25, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J), entered April 22, 2009, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Solotoff Solotoff, Great Neck (Lawrence Solotoff of counsel), for appellant.

Sive Paget Riesel, P.C., New York (Steven C. Russo of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


The instant plenary complaint, while couched in terms of unlawful discrimination and breach of contract, is in fact a challenge to a university's academic and administrative decisions and thus is barred by the four-month statute of limitations for a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the appropriate vehicle for such a challenge ( Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 92; Risley v Rubin, 272 AD2d 198, lv denied 96 NY2d 701).

The complaint is also barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since plaintiff had ample opportunity in the article 78 proceeding he commenced in 2005 to set forth all the charges he raises in this action ( see e.g. Abramova v Albert Einstein Coll. of Medicine of Yeshiva Univ., US Dist Ct, SD NY, 06 Civ 00166, Brieant, J., July 26, 2006, affd 278 Fed Appx 30).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them without merit.

[Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 30925(U).]


Summaries of

Jeevan P. Padiyar v. Albert Einstein College

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 2010
73 A.D.3d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

finding that while plaintiff's complaint was "couched in terms of unlawful discrimination and breach of contract," it was actually a challenge to the university's academic and administrative decisions, thus making it subject to Article 78's statute of limitations

Summary of this case from Doe v. Columbia Univ.
Case details for

Jeevan P. Padiyar v. Albert Einstein College

Case Details

Full title:JEEVAN P. PADIYAR, Appellant, v. ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 25, 2010

Citations

73 A.D.3d 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4460
900 N.Y.S.2d 866

Citing Cases

Sarwar v. N.Y. Coll. of Osteopathic Med. of N.Y. Inst. of Tech.

Id. Although couched in the complaint herein in terms of breach of contract and unjust enrichment,…

Santiago v. Cuomo

The court there upheld the New York City Police Pension Fund's determination that the World Trade Center…