Legal Opinion · Dissent
Buffalo Retired Teachers 91-94 Alliance v. Board of Education for City School District
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 7, 1999Published
1Dissent
Lawton and Scudder, JJ.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. For reasons hereinafter stated, plaintiffs’ action is barred both by the Statute of Limitations and by res judicata.
Education Law § 3813 (2-b) requires an action against a school district or board of education to be commenced within one year after its accrual. Plaintiffs’ breach of contract action for unpaid wages for the period July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1994, under the then existing collective bargaining agreement, accrued when each individual plaintiff retired during that contract period (see, Polce v Clinton Cent. School…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. LopezNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Ely-Cruikshank Co. v. Bank of MontrealNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Board of Education for City School District v. Buffalo Teachers Federation, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Polce v. Clinton Central School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Board of Education v. Buffalo Teachers Federation, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995