Costello v. Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Costello v. Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District

250 A.D.2d 846, 673 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6011

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 846 (Costello v. Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free 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

Costello v. Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District, 250 A.D.2d 846, 673 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to annul a resolution of the Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District dated July 3, 1996, and to enjoin it from requiring prospective teachers to execute waivers of their tenure rights as a condition of obtaining employment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated May 20,1997, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

The appellant Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District (hereinafter the Board) correctly contends that a teacher’s rights with respect to tenure are waivable when the waiver is freely, knowingly, and openly arrived at without the taint of coercion or duress (see, Matter of Feinerman v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 48 NY2d 491; Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, cert denied 444 US 845; Matter of Moore v Board of Educ., 116 AD2d 273). This does not, however, give the Board the authority to eliminate the tenure system altogether.

The tenure system is a legislative expression of a firm public [847]*847policy determination that the interests of the public in the education of our youth can best be served by a system designed to foster academic freedom and to protect competent teachers from the threat of arbitrary dismissal (see, Ricca v Board of Educ., 47 NY2d 385). The system proposed by the Board, i.e., tenure by contract terminating automatically at the expiration of the contract, is the very system sought to be eliminated by the enactment of the tenure statutes of the Education Law and the change to a system of permanence (see, Education Law § 3012; Matter of Carter v Kalamejski, 255 App Div 694, affd 280 NY 803). Accordingly, the resolution implementing this system was improper and the petition was properly granted.

In light of the foregoing determination, the Board’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, 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 annul a resolution of the Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District dated July 3, 1996, and to enjoin it from requiring prospective teachers to execute waivers of their tenure rights as a condition of obtaining employment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated May 20,1997, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

The appellant Board of Education of the East Islip Union Free School District (hereinafter the Board) correctly contends that a teacher’s rights with respect to tenure are waivable when the waiver is freely, knowingly, and openly arrived at without the taint of coercion or duress (see, Matter of Feinerman v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 48 NY2d 491; Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, cert denied 444 US 845; Matter of Moore v Board of Educ., 116 AD2d 273). This does not, however, give the Board the authority to eliminate the tenure system altogether.

The tenure system is a legislative expression of a firm public [847]*847policy determination that the interests of the public in the education of our youth can best be served by a system designed to foster academic freedom and to protect competent teachers from the threat of arbitrary dismissal (see, Ricca v Board of Educ., 47 NY2d 385). The system proposed by the Board, i.e., tenure by contract terminating automatically at the expiration of the contract, is the very system sought to be eliminated by the enactment of the tenure statutes of the Education Law and the change to a system of permanence (see, Education Law § 3012; Matter of Carter v Kalamejski, 255 App Div 694, affd 280 NY 803). Accordingly, the resolution implementing this system was improper and the petition was properly granted.

In light of the foregoing determination, the Board’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 846, 673 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costello-v-board-of-education-of-the-east-islip-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack