Clausen v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clausen v. Board of Education

39 A.D.2d 708, 331 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4725

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

DecidedMay 1, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 708 (Clausen 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

Clausen v. Board of Education, 39 A.D.2d 708, 331 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination discontinuing petitioner’s services as a teacher in the elementary schools of the City of New York prior to the expiration of her probationary period, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated August 6, 1971, which granted the petition and annulled the determination. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs; proceeding dismissed on the merits; and determination confirmed. In our opinion, the hearing afforded petitioner which resulted in the discontinuance of her services was adequate to protect her rights. Neither statute nor due process requires a plenary hearing or representation by counsel in such a matter (Matter of Butler v. Allen, 29 A D 2d 799; Matter of Pinto v. Wynstra, 22 A D 2d 914; Matter of Albury v. New York City Civ. Serv. Comm., 32 A D 2d 895, affd. 27 N Y 2d 694; Matter of Gordon v. State Unit. of N. Y. at Buffalo, 35 A D 2d 868, affd. 29 N Y 2d 684). We find no basis for holding that petitioner was prejudiced by the denial of her application for an adjournment. Approximately one month’s notice of the hearing was given. It is clear on this record that when petitioner appeared for the hearing she was aware that she was not permitted to be represented by counsel. Munder, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination discontinuing petitioner’s services as a teacher in the elementary schools of the City of New York prior to the expiration of her probationary period, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated August 6, 1971, which granted the petition and annulled the determination. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs; proceeding dismissed on the merits; and determination confirmed. In our opinion, the hearing afforded petitioner which resulted in the discontinuance of her services was adequate to protect her rights. Neither statute nor due process requires a plenary hearing or representation by counsel in such a matter (Matter of Butler v. Allen, 29 A D 2d 799; Matter of Pinto v. Wynstra, 22 A D 2d 914; Matter of Albury v. New York City Civ. Serv. Comm., 32 A D 2d 895, affd. 27 N Y 2d 694; Matter of Gordon v. State Unit. of N. Y. at Buffalo, 35 A D 2d 868, affd. 29 N Y 2d 684). We find no basis for holding that petitioner was prejudiced by the denial of her application for an adjournment. Approximately one month’s notice of the hearing was given. It is clear on this record that when petitioner appeared for the hearing she was aware that she was not permitted to be represented by counsel. Munder, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 708, 331 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clausen-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack