Adams v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Board of Education

286 A.D. 868, 142 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4390

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 20, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 868 (Adams v. Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Board of Education, 286 A.D. 868, 142 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying appellant’s application to direct respondent to restore him to service as a teacher in the public schools, and dismissing the petition and proceeding. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. This record discloses merely á conflict of opinion as to the degree and extent of appellant’s disability and the effect thereof on his fitness to be restored to service as a teacher. The mere existence of differences of opinion as to appellant’s fitness to be restored to service does not entitle him to a hearing, nor would the court be warranted in finding that a determination made by the board to act on the advice of its own officials was arbitrary or capricious. [869]*869(Matter of Gollery v. Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 267 App. Div. 835, affd. 294 N. Y. 705; Matter of Strauss v. Hannig, 256 App. Div. 662, affd. 281 N. Y. 612.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldoek and Ughetta, JJ. [See post, p. 968.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order denying appellant’s application to direct respondent to restore him to service as a teacher in the public schools, and dismissing the petition and proceeding. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. This record discloses merely á conflict of opinion as to the degree and extent of appellant’s disability and the effect thereof on his fitness to be restored to service as a teacher. The mere existence of differences of opinion as to appellant’s fitness to be restored to service does not entitle him to a hearing, nor would the court be warranted in finding that a determination made by the board to act on the advice of its own officials was arbitrary or capricious. [869]*869(Matter of Gollery v. Teachers’ Retirement Bd., 267 App. Div. 835, affd. 294 N. Y. 705; Matter of Strauss v. Hannig, 256 App. Div. 662, affd. 281 N. Y. 612.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldoek and Ughetta, JJ. [See post, p. 968.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 868, 142 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack