Broad v. New York City Board/Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broad v. New York City Board/Department of Education

2017 NY Slip Op 3691, 150 A.D.3d 438, 53 N.Y.S.3d 295

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

DecidedMay 9, 2017

Docket3754N 101304/14

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3691 (Broad v. New York City Board/Department 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

Broad v. New York City Board/Department of Education, 2017 NY Slip Op 3691, 150 A.D.3d 438, 53 N.Y.S.3d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 23, 2015, which granted the petition to set aside a determination of an arbitrator, dated October 29, 2014, sustaining numerous charges and specifications against petitioner and terminating her employment as a tenured teacher, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, the determination of the arbitrator reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, dismissed.

The arbitrator’s decision had a rational basis and was supported by adequate evidence (see e.g. Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]). The record shows that the arbitrator reasonably determined that petitioner’s performance as a teacher was deficient for two years based on the observations and ratings of the school principal and two assistant principals. Although some of the charges and specifications were not significant, the record reflects that petitioner was provided with substantial assistance over a two-year time period to improve her pedagogical skills, but she was unwilling to improve her performance.

The penalty of termination from employment does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Matter of Russo v New York City Dept. of Educ., 25 NY3d 946 [2015]; [Matter of Webb v City of New York, 140 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 23, 2015, which granted the petition to set aside a determination of an arbitrator, dated October 29, 2014, sustaining numerous charges and specifications against petitioner and terminating her employment as a tenured teacher, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, the determination of the arbitrator reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, dismissed.

The arbitrator’s decision had a rational basis and was supported by adequate evidence (see e.g. Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]). The record shows that the arbitrator reasonably determined that petitioner’s performance as a teacher was deficient for two years based on the observations and ratings of the school principal and two assistant principals. Although some of the charges and specifications were not significant, the record reflects that petitioner was provided with substantial assistance over a two-year time period to improve her pedagogical skills, but she was unwilling to improve her performance.

The penalty of termination from employment does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Matter of Russo v New York City Dept. of Educ., 25 NY3d 946 [2015]; [Matter of Webb v City of New York, 140 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3691, 150 A.D.3d 438, 53 N.Y.S.3d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broad-v-new-york-city-boarddepartment-of-education-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack