Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District v. Butcher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District v. Butcher

61 A.D.2d 1011, 402 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10645

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 1011 (Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District v. Butcher) 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

Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free School District v. Butcher, 61 A.D.2d 1011, 402 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum which was served upon Ernest Valenze in the course of a proceeding pursuant to section 3020-a of the Education Law against Lawrence Butcher, a tenured teacher, the said teacher appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 6, 1977, as granted in part the application to quash the subpoena and denied in part his cross motion to compel compliance with the said subpoena. Order modified, on the law, by (1) adding thereto provisions directing that the petitioner, at the appellant’s expense, reproduce the entire records of the appellant’s students for the hearing panel, after obliterating all identifying data, and that the panel and the parties’ attorneys examine the records and exclude therefrom any irrelevant portions, (2) deleting the fourth decretal paragraph thereof, (3) deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph thereof the words "shall not permit” and substituting therefor the words "shall permit”, and (4) deleting the sixth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision that the hearing panel shall preserve a copy of the records produced so that they may be made available in the event that judicial review is sought after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding against appellant. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The respondent has failed to sustain the burden of establishing that the records sought are immune from disclosure. (See Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294.) Any degree of confidentiality accorded -to the students’ records must yield to the appellant’s right to prepare his defense to the charges made against his reputation and his competence in his profession. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum which was served upon Ernest Valenze in the course of a proceeding pursuant to section 3020-a of the Education Law against Lawrence Butcher, a tenured teacher, the said teacher appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 6, 1977, as granted in part the application to quash the subpoena and denied in part his cross motion to compel compliance with the said subpoena. Order modified, on the law, by (1) adding thereto provisions directing that the petitioner, at the appellant’s expense, reproduce the entire records of the appellant’s students for the hearing panel, after obliterating all identifying data, and that the panel and the parties’ attorneys examine the records and exclude therefrom any irrelevant portions, (2) deleting the fourth decretal paragraph thereof, (3) deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph thereof the words "shall not permit” and substituting therefor the words "shall permit”, and (4) deleting the sixth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision that the hearing panel shall preserve a copy of the records produced so that they may be made available in the event that judicial review is sought after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding against appellant. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The respondent has failed to sustain the burden of establishing that the records sought are immune from disclosure. (See Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294.) Any degree of confidentiality accorded -to the students’ records must yield to the appellant’s right to prepare his defense to the charges made against his reputation and his competence in his profession. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 1011, 402 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-of-the-island-trees-union-free-school-district-v-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack