Adolphe v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adolphe v. New York City Board of Education

89 A.D.3d 532, 932 N.Y.2d 482

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[533]*533Petitioner failed during the arbitration proceeding to preserve his argument that his First Amendment rights were violated. As a result, and contrary to petitioner’s contention on appeal, the issue was improperly raised for the first time in his petition before the court (see Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp. [Dakar Devs.], 232 AD2d 62, 64 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 808 [1998]). Were we to consider this argument, we would find it without merit (see Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 US 410, 417 [2006]).

Petitioner’s contention that the hearing officer’s decision was based on mistakes of law and a disregard of the evidence is unavailing, since these are not grounds for vacating an arbitration award (Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v Graef, 34 AD3d 220 [2006]).

Petitioner’s remaining contention, that the specifications against him were not brought in accordance with the Education Law, is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

[533]*533Petitioner failed during the arbitration proceeding to preserve his argument that his First Amendment rights were violated. As a result, and contrary to petitioner’s contention on appeal, the issue was improperly raised for the first time in his petition before the court (see Matter of Migdal Plumbing & Heating Corp. [Dakar Devs.], 232 AD2d 62, 64 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 808 [1998]). Were we to consider this argument, we would find it without merit (see Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 US 410, 417 [2006]).

Petitioner’s contention that the hearing officer’s decision was based on mistakes of law and a disregard of the evidence is unavailing, since these are not grounds for vacating an arbitration award (Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v Graef, 34 AD3d 220 [2006]).

Petitioner’s remaining contention, that the specifications against him were not brought in accordance with the Education Law, is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

Adolphe v. New York City Board of Education, 89 A.D.3d 532, 932 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 532 (Adolphe v. New York City Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related