Baylis v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baylis v. Board of Education

80 A.D.2d 610, 437 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10300

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 610 (Baylis 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

Baylis v. Board of Education, 80 A.D.2d 610, 437 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner as a special education teacher and to expunge an “unsatisfactory” rating from his employment records, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11, 1980, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner’s central contention on appeal is that his “unsatisfactory” rating and discontinuance as a probationary special education teacher were not preceded by inspection of his work and consultation with him by an assistant superintendent or her supervisory designee, as required by section 41 (subd 3, par [e]) of the by-laws of the Board of Education of the City of New York (see Matter of Longarzo v Anker, 49 AD2d 879). Our examination of the record supports the conclusion of Special Term that “there were numerous observations and consultations” by the appropriate supervisory designees. Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed. Damiani, J.P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner as a special education teacher and to expunge an “unsatisfactory” rating from his employment records, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11, 1980, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Petitioner’s central contention on appeal is that his “unsatisfactory” rating and discontinuance as a probationary special education teacher were not preceded by inspection of his work and consultation with him by an assistant superintendent or her supervisory designee, as required by section 41 (subd 3, par [e]) of the by-laws of the Board of Education of the City of New York (see Matter of Longarzo v Anker, 49 AD2d 879). Our examination of the record supports the conclusion of Special Term that “there were numerous observations and consultations” by the appropriate supervisory designees. Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed. Damiani, J.P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 610, 437 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baylis-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack