Stepper v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y.
2012 NY Slip Op 06383 [98 AD3d 915]
September 27, 2012
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, October 24, 2012


Phyllis Muriel Stepper, Appellant,
v
Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Stewart Lee Karlin of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered June 27, 2011, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the City of New York was an improper party to the action (see e.g. Perez v City of New York, 41 AD3d 378 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 708 [2008]). The motion court also correctly determined that to the extent plaintiff challenged the unsatisfactory rating she received following the 2007-2008 school year, those allegations were time-barred (Education Law § 3813 [2-b]). To the extent plaintiff sought to challenge the unsatisfactory rating she received in 2009, those allegations are barred as a result of her failure to file a notice of claim (Education Law § 3813 [1]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

[Recalled and vacated, see 104 AD3d 412.]