MATTER OF OBOLENSKY v. NEW YORK STATE DIV. OF HUMAN RIGHTS


67 A.D.2d 1069 (1979)

In the Matter of Alexander P. Obolensky, Petitioner, v. New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

February 22, 1979


Petitioner was employed as an assistant professor by respondent State University of New York when, on March 29, 1973, he was given notice that he would not be reappointed. Following said notification petitioner appealed from the decision to deny his reappointment. He failed to succeed on his appeal. On August 27, 1975 petitioner filed a discrimination complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. The complaint was dismissed based on a finding that it was not filed within one year after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice as required by subdivision 5 of section 297 of the Executive Law. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding. The act of giving petitioner notice that he would not be reappointed started the running of the limitation period and such limitation was not tolled by the procedures utilized by respondents following petitioner's appeal of the decision to deny his reappointment (Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City Univ. of N. Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 N.Y.2d 926). Consequently, petitioner did not file within the prescribed time period. It is argued by petitioner, however, that respondents waived the defense of the statutory time limitation by failing to raise the time limitation as a defense. We disagree. Where a cause of action is created by a statute and a time limitation is attached to its commencement, the time is an ingredient of the cause and the time limit need not be asserted by way of defense (Romano v Romano, 19 N.Y.2d 444, 447). In the present case, the time limitation prescribed in subdivision 5 of section 297 of the Executive Law is not a matter of defense and, unless the proceeding was brought within one year, petitioner has no cause of action (State Div. of Human Rights v University of Rochester, 53 A.D.2d 1020). Accordingly, petitioner's complaint was properly dismissed and the board's determination must be confirmed.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases