Callahan v. Board of Education of the Putnam Valley Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Callahan v. Board of Education of the Putnam Valley Central School District

267 A.D.2d 235, 699 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12552

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 1999·Published

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of Schools of the respondent, Board of Education of the Putnam Valley Central School District, dated March 27, 1998, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of incompetence and terminated his employment as a custodian.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the [236]*236proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Superintendent of Schools of the respondent, made after a hearing, to terminate his employment as a custodian is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Glinka v Town of Poughkeepsie, 209 AD2d 773; Matter of Romano v Town Bd., 200 AD2d 934).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of Schools of the respondent, Board of Education of the Putnam Valley Central School District, dated March 27, 1998, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of incompetence and terminated his employment as a custodian.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the [236]*236proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Superintendent of Schools of the respondent, made after a hearing, to terminate his employment as a custodian is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Glinka v Town of Poughkeepsie, 209 AD2d 773; Matter of Romano v Town Bd., 200 AD2d 934).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Callahan v. Board of Education of the Putnam Valley Central School District, 267 A.D.2d 235, 699 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 235 (Callahan v. Board of Education of the Putnam Valley Central School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related