Brusino v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brusino v. Board of Education

86 A.D.2d 748, 449 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15309

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 748 (Brusino 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

Brusino v. Board of Education, 86 A.D.2d 748, 449 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We affirm essentially for the reasons stated at Special Term (Broughton, J.). We add only that Matter of Savino v Bradford Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (75 AD2d 994) is inapposite. In Savino, the position involved was that of district principal, one specifically included in chapter 436 of the Laws of 1975, which (in seeming conflict with the repeal in chapter 468 of the Laws of 1975 of authorization for contractual hiring) permitted the board of education, in its discretion, to enter into employment contracts with certain classes of employees. The position involved here is that of deputy superintendent, an office having a purely administrative function (see Matter of Parsons, 16 Ed Dept Rep 134). While administrators are specifically included in chapter 468 of the Laws of 1975, the provision removing authorization for contractual hiring, they are excluded in chapter 436 of the Laws of 1975. The omission is significant, and we conclude that the Legislature did not intend to authorize contracts with administrators on June 20, 1977, the date of the contract plaintiff seeks to enforce (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 240). (Appeal from orders of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Broughton, J. — breach of contract.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We affirm essentially for the reasons stated at Special Term (Broughton, J.). We add only that Matter of Savino v Bradford Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (75 AD2d 994) is inapposite. In Savino, the position involved was that of district principal, one specifically included in chapter 436 of the Laws of 1975, which (in seeming conflict with the repeal in chapter 468 of the Laws of 1975 of authorization for contractual hiring) permitted the board of education, in its discretion, to enter into employment contracts with certain classes of employees. The position involved here is that of deputy superintendent, an office having a purely administrative function (see Matter of Parsons, 16 Ed Dept Rep 134). While administrators are specifically included in chapter 468 of the Laws of 1975, the provision removing authorization for contractual hiring, they are excluded in chapter 436 of the Laws of 1975. The omission is significant, and we conclude that the Legislature did not intend to authorize contracts with administrators on June 20, 1977, the date of the contract plaintiff seeks to enforce (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 240). (Appeal from orders of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Broughton, J. — breach of contract.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 748, 449 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brusino-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack