SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY SPECIAL TERM, PART I --------------------------------------- x In the Matter of the Application of LOCAL 300, THE CIVIL SERVICE FORUM and LOCAL 300, THE CIVIL SERVICE FORUM EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUND for an order under CPLR Article 78, Petitioners, Index No. 19528/80 -against-ARVID ANDERSON, as Chairman of the Office of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York, BRUCE McIVER, Director of the Office of Municipal Labor Relations of the City of New York, Respondents. --------------------------------------- x Taylor, J.: In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioners seek to annul respondent-Chairman's determination certifying another local as exclusive bargaining representative of certain workers, together with related injunctive relief and money damages. Respondent-Chairman has cross moved to dismiss the petition as time barred. The determination complained of was served upon petitioner by certified mail on June 5, 1980. Section 213 of the Civil Service Law provides that such determination are reviewable under Article 78 “upon petition filed by an aggrieved party within 30 days after service by registered or certified mail of a copy of such order upon such party”. 1
2
This proceeding was begun by petitioner on September 30, 1980. Thus, having been brought more than 30 days after the determination sought to be reviewed, it is time-barred by section 213. Davis v Anderson, 51 AD2d 528 (lst Dept., 1976). Petitioner's argument that its request for reconsideration of the Board's determination tolled the statute of limitations is without merit. It is well settled that an application to reconsider an administrative board's determination does not extend the statutory period within which to seek judicial review of such determination. In re Johnston, 68 AD2d 991 (3rd Dept., 1979); Davis v Anderson, supra. Accordingly, the cross motions of respondents to dismiss is granted, petitioners' application is denied and the petition is dismissed. Settle judgment. Dated: January 13, 1981 3
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.