SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : I.A.S. PART 7 --------------------------------------- x In the Matter of the Application of PHIL CARUSO, as President of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., and THE PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Index No. 1171/87 -against-ARVID ANDERSON, Chairman and MILTON FRIEDMAN, DANIEL G. COLLINS, JOHN D. FEERICK, DEAN L. SILVERBERG, EDWARD F. GRAY and CAROLYN GENTILE, as Members of the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York, THE BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF THE CITY CF NEW YORK OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, ROBERT W. LINN, as Director of the Office of Municipal Labor Relations of the City of New York, THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL LABOR RELATIONS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BENJAMIN WARD, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD of the Police Department of the City of New York, and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. --------------------------------------- x LOUIS GROSSMAN, J.: In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner Caruso seeks the review of a determination of the Board of Collective Bargaining of the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB) dismissing a union petition which challenged actions
2 of the New York City Office of Municipal Labor Relations (OMLR) which had revoked a rule precluding civilian complaints filed against police officers from being revealed to their commanding officers. The respondents cross-move to dismiss the petition as time-barred. Section 213(a) of the Civil Service Law provides that Article 78 review requires that “a petition [be] filed by an aggrieved party within thirty (30) days after service by registered or certified mail of a copy of such order upon such party ....” In this case the petitioner was served with notice of the OCB determination on October 3, 1986 by certified mail. This proceeding, begun on January 15, 1987 by petitioner, was brought more than thirty (30) days after the determination sought to be reviewed and is thus time-barred by section 213. Davis v. Anderson, 51 A.D.2d 528, 379 N.Y.S.2d 85 (1st Dept. 1976), motion for leave to appeal denied, 39 N.Y.2d 707, 385 N.Y.S.2d 1927 (1976). Petitioner's argument chat CPLR 217 applies is without merit. That section specifically states that the four month limit applies" [unless a shorter time is provided in the law authorizing the processing....” Further, section 212 makes the provision of section 213 applicable to local governments which, under the Taylor Law, have adopted their own labor relations mechanisms. Council of Judicial Conference Employees of Nassau County v. Cooper, 68 Misc.2d 951, 328 N.Y. S. 2d 945 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Co. 1972 ), and applicability
3 of the thirty (30) day limitation to OCB boards has been firmly established. Davis v. Anderson , supra. Finally, petitioner's argument that the New York City Council is without the power to limit substantive rights and, thus, cannot enact a statute of limitations is without merit. "A true ‘statute of limitations’ extinguishes only the right to enforce the remedy and not the substantive right itself...." Fenton v. Citizens Savings Ass'n., 400 F. Supp. 874, 878 (D.C. Mo. 1975). Accordingly, respondents' cross motion is granted and the petition is dismissed. Settle judgment. DATED: July 13, 1987 LOUIS GROSSMAN J. S. C.
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.