From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Johnson v. New York State Office

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1994
202 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 21, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

By "Notice of Appointment or Status Change" dated April 19, 1990, the respondent Creedmoor Psychiatric Center notified the appellant that he had been appointed to the position of Safety and Security Officer Trainee effective on that date with a one-year probationary period ending April 17, 1991. By "Notice of Appointment or Status Change" dated November 20, 1990, the petitioner was informed that his status had been retroactively changed from permanent to temporary for the period from April 19, 1990, through October 2, 1990. His status was also changed from temporary to permanent effective October 3, 1990, with a one-year probationary period ending October 2, 1991. By "Notice of Appointment or Status Change" dated July 2, 1991, the petitioner's probationary position was terminated.

The petitioner claims that prior to his discharge he had not been afforded a termination hearing or a statement of reasons for termination, and that a permanent employee would have been entitled to a hearing or statement of reasons. In support of his claim, the petitioner seeks to challenge the change of his probationary status in November 1990. This change, which occurred approximately nine months prior to his discharge, rendered him a probationary employee on the date of his discharge. However, pursuant to CPLR 217, a challenge to the validity of a probationary period must be made within four months after the petitioner is informed of the probationary status (see, Matter of Caminiti v. New York City Tr. Auth. Police Dept., 125 A.D.2d 306). Here, the petitioner was notified on November 20, 1990, that his probationary status had been changed. Since this proceeding was not commenced until August 1, 1991, the Supreme Court properly determined that the proceeding was barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 217).

We have examined the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Johnson v. New York State Office

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1994
202 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Johnson v. New York State Office

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHARLES JOHNSON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 270

Citing Cases

Finley v. Giacobbe

See Meyers, 208 A.D.2d at 264-45, 622 N.Y.S.2d at 534 (action at law brought by probationary employee was…