Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(CUNY wins, case as too late)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Knights v. City Univ. of N.Y.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 1, 2026
Docket
Index No. 100716/24|Appeal No. 7114|Case No. 2025-03740|
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05599
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court, New York County: the case for being time-barred.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (CUNY wins, case as too late)

TL;DR

  1. 1The dispute centers on a former athletic director fired after harassment claims and later not interviewed for a new job.
  2. 2The court decided that he cannot sue CUNY because he missed the time limit to file such a case.
  3. 3His prior court cases and the expiration of the legal filing period are the main reasons.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Can the fired athletic director challenge his 2017 termination now?

    Holding · No, the court said he cannot sue now because he missed the four-month time limit to file.

  2. 2

    Can CUNY's decision not to interview him for a new job in 2022 be challenged?

    Holding · No, the court ruled it wasn't arbitrary or capricious, and the lawsuit is too late.

  3. 3

    Does res judicata bar his claims?

    Holding · Yes, the claims about the 2017 firing were already litigated and cannot be re-litigated.

Why it matters

This decision affects employees who wish to contest past employment actions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal deadlines for filing cases.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Should the fired athletic director's case against CUNY go forward?

  1. 1A former athletic director was fired in 2017 after harassment claims.
  2. 2He says CUNY unfairly didn't interview him for a new job in 2022.
  3. 3He's trying to challenge these decisions, but timing and past cases are issues.

Should the court let a fired athletic director sue CUNY for his 2017 firing and 2022 non-interview?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Knights

  • Appellee

    City Univ. of N.Y.

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Knights v City Univ. of N.Y. 2026 NY Slip Op 05599 October 1, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Rogelio Knights, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v The City University of New York, Respondent-Respondent. Decided and Entered: October 01, 2026 Index No. 100716/24|Appeal No. 7114|Case No. 2025-03740| Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Michael, Hagler, JJ. Rogelio Knights, Jr., appellant pro se. Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (D. Alan Rosinus, Jr. of counsel), for respondent. [*1] Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered April 14, 2025, granting petitioner's motion to renew and, upon renewal, granting respondent City University of New York's cross-motion to dismiss, and denying the petition to, among other things, annul respondent's March 2017 determination which terminated petitioner from his position as an interim student athletic director, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding against his former employer, respondent City University of New York (CUNY), challenging his 2017 termination following an investigation into harassment allegations against him and CUNY's decision not to interview him for another position in 2022, is time-barred (see CPLR 217[1]; Matter of Davis v Adams, 234 AD3d 476, 477 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 906 [2025]). Petitioner brought the proceeding well outside the four-month statute of limitations. Even if the petition were timely, the claims stemming from the 2017 termination are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as petitioner already litigated the merits of his due process claims in federal court (see Matter of Pinkard v New York City Dept. of Educ., 190 AD3d 532, 532 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 939 [2021]). As for CUNY's decision not to interview petitioner for another position in 2022, it was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Rosenthal v Roosevelt Is. Operating Corp., 209 AD3d 598 [1st Dept 2022]; see also Matter of Betram v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 231 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2024]). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 1, 2026
View on CourtListener