| Matter of Murnane v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02054 [82 AD3d 576] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of Jennifer Murnane,
Appellant, v Department of Education of the City of New York, Respondent. |
—[*1]
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), for respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered December 31, 2009, which denied the petition seeking to, among other things, annul respondent's determination terminating petitioner's employment as a probationary teacher and to direct respondent to expunge petitioner's year-end unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) and reinstate her employment, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly determined that petitioner's challenge to her termination as a probationary teacher is time-barred. Such a challenge must be brought within four months of the effective date of termination, and the petitioner's pursuit of administrative remedies does not toll the four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 79 AD3d 521, 522 [2010]). The effective date of petitioner's termination was July 26, 2007. Accordingly, her petition, filed on July 17, 2009, was untimely.
While respondent concedes that the petition is not time-barred to the extent that it seeks review of the U-rating (see Matter of Andersen v Klein, 50 AD3d 296, 297 [2008]), petitioner has failed to show that the rating was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith. The detailed observation reports by the principal and assistant principal, describing petitioner's poor performance in class management, engagement of students, and lesson planning, provided a rational basis for the rating (see id.). Petitioner's contention that the principal was biased against [*2]her is speculative and insufficient to establish bad faith (see Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly, 28 AD3d 320 [2006]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.