Matter of Queensborough Cmty. Coll. of the City Univ. Of New York v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 N.Y.2d 926 (NY 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Queensborough Cmty. Coll. of the City Univ. Of New York v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 N.Y.2d 926 (NY 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case · …entirely unrelated contractual grounds at p. 926 ⚠ not in text
57 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York
NY · 2025 · confidence medium
The Appellate Division's reliance on Matter of Queensborough is misplaced because that case concerned a statutory claim that was not subject to a mandatory grievance process ( Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City Univ of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd. , 41 NY2d 926, 926 [1977]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York (3×)
NY · 2025 · confidence medium
The Appellate Division's reliance on Matter of Queensborough is misplaced because that case concerned a statutory claim that was not subject to a mandatory grievance process ( Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd. , 41 NY2d 926, 926 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dourdounas v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
However, pursuing the union grievance did not function to toll the statute of limitations as to the underlying denial of the retirement incentive ( see Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd. , 41 NY2d 926, 926 [1977]; Mitchell v Nassau Community Coll. , 265 AD2d 456, 456 [2d Dept 1999]; Matter of Vasbinder v Hartnett , 129 AD2d 894, 894-895 [3d Dept 1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 606 [1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bargstedt v. Cornell University
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
While it will be tolled when the grievance procedure is mandatory (see Matter of Patry [Village of Tupper Lake], 262 AD2d 757, 759 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 753 [1999]), it will typically not be tolled where a voluntary grievance procedure is employed (see Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d 926, 926 [1977]; Roufaiel v Ithaca Coll., 241 AD2d 865, 867 [1997]; Matter of Vasbinder v Hartnett, 129 AD2d 894, 895 [1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 606 [1987]).
discussed Cited "see" Dykstra v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Queensborough, 41 N.Y.2d at 926 , 394 N.Y.S.2d 625 , 363 N.E.2d 349 ; Bargstedt v. Cornell Univ., 304 A.D.2d 1035 , 757 N.Y.S.2d 646, 648 (3d Dep't 2003) ("While [the statute of limitations] will be tolled when the grievance procedure is mandatory, it will typically not be tolled where a voluntary grievance procedure is employed.” (citations omitted)); Roufaiel v. Ithaca Coll., 241 A.D.2d 865 , 660 N.Y.S.2d 595, 598 (3d Dep't 1997) ("Our examination of the record discloses that the College's grievance procedure was not mandatory; instead it merely provided plaintiff with an alternative f…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Donoso v. New York Univ.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The four-month statute of limitations applicable to article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217[1]) was not tolled by plaintiff's invocation of defendant's voluntary student grievance procedure ( see Matter of Bargstedt v Cornell Univ. , 304 AD2d 1035, 1036 [3d Dept 2003]; Matter of Jones v McGuire , 92 AD2d 788, 789 [1st Dept 1983]; see also Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeals Bd. , 41 NY2d 926, 926 [1977] [limitation period is not tolled "by the invocation of (a) grievance procedure which is merely an alternative remedy"]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Queensborough Community College of the City University of New York et al., Respondents,
v.
State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Respondents, and Ethne E. K. Marenco, Appellant.
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 24, 1977.
41 N.Y.2d 926
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published

Everett E. Lewis for appellant.

W. Bernard Richland, Corporation Counsel (Mary P. Bass and L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), for petitioners-respondents.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

MEMORANDUM.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The applicable statute provides that: "Any complaint filed pursuant to this section must be so filed within one year after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice" (Executive Law, § 297, subd 5). The alleged discriminatory practice was the manifested decision not to reappoint complainant. Hence, there is no basis for reasoning that the limitation did not start to run until complainant had completed her current term of employment. The act of giving complainant notice that she would not be reappointed gave rise immediately to a "cause of action", as the Appellate Division observed, and therefore started the running of the limitation period. The analogy to Statutes of Limitation in general civil practice would lead to the same conclusion (CPLR 203, subd [a]; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 203.01). Nor is the limitation tolled by the invocation of grievance procedure which is merely an alternative remedy. In Federal practice under the Federal statutes a similar conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court (Electrical Workers v Robbins & Meyers, 429 US 229, 236-240).

Order affirmed.