Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York (Daniel E. Dugan of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered April 16, 2018, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondents' determination effective June 27, 2016, terminating petitioner's probationary employment, and granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The article 78 petition was untimely filed. The effective date of petitioner's termination was June 27, 2016, and she had until October 27, 2016, to challenge respondents' determination, but commenced this article 78 proceeding on June 16, 2017 (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Andersen v Klein, 50 AD3d 296 [1st Dept 2008]; Todras v City of New York, 11 AD3d 383, 384 [1st Dept 2004]). The record shows that petitioner was dismissed due to an unsatisfactory performance rating and because, inter alia, of her failure to immediately notify her supervisor of her arrest—not due to the arrest itself, as she claims. Thus, petitioner's argument that the statute of limitations was tolled until the criminal charges against her were dismissed is unavailing (see Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 18 NY3d 457, 472 [2012]).

In any event, petitioner's failure to timely notify respondents of her arrest, in violation of Department of Education regulations provides a good faith basis for terminating her employment (see Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649, 650 [1986]; Matter of Cardo v Murphy, 104 AD2d 884 [2d Dept 1984]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kern, Oing, Singh, JJ.