Brown v. Board of Education of the City School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Board of Education of the City School District

54 A.D.2d 944, 388 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14829

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 944 (Brown v. Board of Education of the City School District) 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

Brown v. Board of Education of the City School District, 54 A.D.2d 944, 388 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to review a determination of appellant Anker,. dated June 17, 1975, which accepted a recommendation that petitioner’s probationary service be discontinued, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 17, 1975, which annulled the determination and directed appellants to reinstate petitioner. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. Matter of Longarzo v Anker (49 AD2d 879), relied on by Special Term, is distinguishable. In Longarzo the assistant superintendent admitted that she did nothing on her own to verify the teacher’s unsatisfactory rating. In the instant case, the assistant superintendent observed petitioner for almost one full period of teaching and spoke with her after that observation. In addition, he reviewed other documents relating to petitioner’s performance. On those facts, we hold that there was sufficient compliance with section 41 (subd 3, [945]*945par [e]) of the by-laws of the board of education, as it then read. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, 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 inter alia to review a determination of appellant Anker,. dated June 17, 1975, which accepted a recommendation that petitioner’s probationary service be discontinued, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 17, 1975, which annulled the determination and directed appellants to reinstate petitioner. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. Matter of Longarzo v Anker (49 AD2d 879), relied on by Special Term, is distinguishable. In Longarzo the assistant superintendent admitted that she did nothing on her own to verify the teacher’s unsatisfactory rating. In the instant case, the assistant superintendent observed petitioner for almost one full period of teaching and spoke with her after that observation. In addition, he reviewed other documents relating to petitioner’s performance. On those facts, we hold that there was sufficient compliance with section 41 (subd 3, [945]*945par [e]) of the by-laws of the board of education, as it then read. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 944, 388 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-board-of-education-of-the-city-school-district-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack