Opinion
11-14-2017
Bobbie THOMPSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Bobbie Thompson, appellant pro se.
Robin Roach, New York (Ximena Castro of Counsel), for District Council 37, AFSCME and AFL–CIO, respondents.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kathy C. Park of Counsel), for Board of Education, respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about June 3, 2016, which granted defendants' CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss the, in effect, hybrid complaint and CPLR Article 78 petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs. As the latest adverse action alleged by plaintiff occurred on September 17, 2012, when defendant union informed her that it would not arbitrate her termination, and plaintiff did not commence this action until September 10, 2015, all of her claims against defendant New York City Department of Education (DOE), sued herein as "Board of Education," are time-barred, either under the four-month limitations period governing claims under CPLR Article 78 (see CPLR 217[1] ; Matter of Lipton v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 284 A.D.2d 140, 140–41, 726 N.Y.S.2d 95 [1st Dept.2001] ) or the one-year limitations period applicable to other claims against DOE (see Education Law § 3813[2–b] ; Matter of Amorosi v. South Colonie Ind. Cent. School Dist., 9 N.Y.3d 367, 369, 849 N.Y.S.2d 485, 880 N.E.2d 6 [2007] ).
Plaintiff's claims against the union for breach of the duty of fair representation are likewise untimely under the applicable four-month limitations period (see CPLR 217[2][a] ; Cruz v. United Fed. of Teachers, 128 A.D.3d 526, 526–27, 9 N.Y.S.3d 256 [1st Dept.2015] ). All of her discrimination claims against the union relating to events alleged to have occurred prior to September 10, 2012 are untimely under the governing three-year limitations periods (see CPLR 214[2] ; Admin Code of City of N.Y. § 8–502[d]; Santiago–Mendez v. City of New York, 136 A.D.3d 428, 428, 26 N.Y.S.3d 514 [1st Dept.2016] ). Plaintiff's facially timely claim that the union discriminated against her by refusing to arbitrate her termination fails to state a cause of action, as plaintiff has failed to allege any facts which could support an inference of bias (see Llanos v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 620, 620, 10 N.Y.S.3d 870 [1st Dept.2015] ; Askin v. Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 621, 622, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 [1st Dept.2013] ).
Plaintiff's remaining contentions, including her constitutional claims and her claims under Civil Service Law § 75, are unpreserved and without merit.
RICHTER, J.P., MAZZARELLI, KAHN, MOULTON, JJ., concur.