Rizwan Gondal Loses in Court Because He Failed To File a Notice of Claim

Gondal v New York City Dept. of Educ.

2005 NY Slip Op 04488 [19 AD3d 141]

June 7, 2005

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Rizwan Gondal, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education et al., Respondents.

—[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered October 6, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

According to the complaint, injurious statements were made about plaintiff's performance as a teacher by the principal of the New York City public school in which he worked. Plaintiff's claims, however, insofar as they purport to seek damages for defamation, are time-barred, since plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim within the applicable three-month statutory period (see Education Law § 3813 [1]) and never timely sought permission of the court for a filing extension (see Education Law § 3813 [2-a], [2-b]).

Plaintiff, in any event, alleges no cognizable claim for defamation: the complained-of statements either were not published to third parties (see Sieger v Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can., 1 AD3d 180, 183 [2003], appeal dismissed 2 NY3d 758 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]), were undisputedly true (see Aguinaga v 342 E. 72nd St. Corp., 14 AD3d 304, 305 [2005]), or were shielded by the qualified privilege accorded communications between parties on matters in which they share a common interest, plaintiff's [*2]conclusory allegations of malice being insufficient to overcome the privilege (see Hanlin v Sternlicht, 6 AD3d 334 [2004]).

Plaintiff's remaining arguments are unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

To Win a Reversal of a U to an S An Educator Must Cite Violations of the UFT Contract and Show Bad Faith

The point of the First Department Appellate Division in reversing the decision to grant a change to the U-rating is that the Appellant teacher did not raise the issue of the violation of the UFT contract at the school level observation.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com

Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

IN RE JEROME RAZOR, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

3013, 101079/13.2017 NY Slip Op 00932

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

Decided February 7, 2017.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered April 9, 2015, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denying respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, granting the petition to the extent it annulled respondents' April 3, 2013 determination denying petitioner's appeal of his U-rating, and directing respondent Board of Education to expunge the rating and replace it with an "S" rating, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Emma Grunberg of counsel), for appellants.

Glass Krakower LLP, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman, Gesmer, JJ.

Petitioner failed to preserve the issue of whether the U-rating should have been annulled based on an alleged procedural deficiency or deviation from the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by his union regarding observation practices, since he never raised the issue at the administrative level (see e.g. Matter of Bottom v Annucci, 26 NY3d 983, 985 [2015]; Green v New York City Police Dept., 34 AD3d 262, 263 [1st Dept 2006]).

Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith.

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.