Baron v. Mackreth

30 A.D.2d 810, 292 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3516
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 810 (Baron v. Mackreth) 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
Baron v. Mackreth, 30 A.D.2d 810, 292 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

In a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner to his position of teacher of driver education in the respondent school district, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 8, 1967, which dismissed his petition. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition granted. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the record does not specifically indicate when, if ever, respondents refused to comply with petitioner’s request for reinstatement and, therefore, the proceeding is not untimely (CPLR 217; Matter of O’Buck v. City of Yonkers, 2 A D 2d 775). We are of the further opinion that the case at bar is governed by the Education Law, which provides that the incumbent of an abolished position is entitled to appointment to a new or restored office without reduction in salary where “ the performance of duties [is] similar to those performed in the office or position abolished ” (Education Law, § 2585, subd. 2; § 2510, subd. 1; 52 N. Y. Jur., Schools, Colleges & Universities, § 359). Furthermore, the statute also provides that the incumbent of an abolished office shall be placed on a preferred list of candidates for appointment to a position “ similar ” to the one which he had previously filled (Education Law, § 2585, subd. 5; § 2510, subd. 3). Respondents herein formally placed petitioner on such a list when they notified him of the termination of his services. Thereafter, the deleted course previously taught by petitioner was restored to the curriculum on an accredited basis and “part-time” teachers were hired to instruct the students. Under these circumstances, where the performance of duties is unquestionably “similar” to those of the abolished position, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement (cf. Matter of Cusack v. Board of Educ., 174 N. Y. 136). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Avila v. Board of Education
240 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Boyer v. Board of Education
132 Misc. 2d 282 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Gross v. Board of Education
94 A.D.2d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Page v. Macchiarola
85 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Klein v. Deer Park Union Free School District
110 Misc. 2d 332 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Dinan v. Board of Education
74 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Weimer v. Board of Education
99 Misc. 2d 47 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Chauvel v. Nyquist
55 A.D.2d 76 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Bruso v. Board of Education
53 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Smith v. Mac Murray
52 A.D.2d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.2d 810, 292 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-v-mackreth-nyappdiv-1968.