Curcio v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curcio v. New York City Department of Education

55 A.D.3d 438, 866 N.Y.S.2d 73

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 438 (Curcio v. New York City Department 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

Curcio v. New York City Department of Education, 55 A.D.3d 438, 866 N.Y.S.2d 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered June 20, 2007, which, insofar as ap[439]*439pealed from as limited by the briefs, denied respondents’ motion to dismiss so much of the petition as sought review of the termination of petitioner’s probationary employment under his physical education license, and reinstated petitioner’s physical education license nunc pro tunc to May 15, 2006, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and so much of the petition challenging such termination dismissed.

Petitioner’s challenge to the termination of his probationary employment under his physical education license, which was based on his alleged premeditated misuse of sick leave, should have been dismissed, since petitioner failed to establish that his termination “was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith” (Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763, 765 [1988]). Although the record shows that petitioner was not given the requisite 60-day statutory notice that his probationary employment was being terminated, which would ordinarily entitle him to one day’s pay for each day the notice was late (see Matter of Tucker v Board of Educ., Community School Dist. No. 10, 82 NY2d 274, 277-278 [1993]; Education Law § 2573 [1] [a]), petitioner is not entitled to such payment because, upon termination of his probationary employment, he immediately resumed his duties at the same school and at the same rate of pay under his common branch license under which he was fully tenured. Concur—Lippman, PJ., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered June 20, 2007, which, insofar as ap[439]*439pealed from as limited by the briefs, denied respondents’ motion to dismiss so much of the petition as sought review of the termination of petitioner’s probationary employment under his physical education license, and reinstated petitioner’s physical education license nunc pro tunc to May 15, 2006, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and so much of the petition challenging such termination dismissed.

Petitioner’s challenge to the termination of his probationary employment under his physical education license, which was based on his alleged premeditated misuse of sick leave, should have been dismissed, since petitioner failed to establish that his termination “was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith” (Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763, 765 [1988]). Although the record shows that petitioner was not given the requisite 60-day statutory notice that his probationary employment was being terminated, which would ordinarily entitle him to one day’s pay for each day the notice was late (see Matter of Tucker v Board of Educ., Community School Dist. No. 10, 82 NY2d 274, 277-278 [1993]; Education Law § 2573 [1] [a]), petitioner is not entitled to such payment because, upon termination of his probationary employment, he immediately resumed his duties at the same school and at the same rate of pay under his common branch license under which he was fully tenured. Concur—Lippman, PJ., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 438, 866 N.Y.S.2d 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curcio-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack