Davies v. New York City Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davies v. New York City Department of Education

117 A.D.3d 446, 985 N.Y.S.2d 76

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

DecidedMay 6, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 446 (Davies 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

Davies v. New York City Department of Education, 117 A.D.3d 446, 985 N.Y.S.2d 76 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered July 3, 2012, which granted the petition to vacate the determination to terminate petitioner’s employment with respondent Department of Education as a tenured school teacher, denied respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition and remanded the matter for a determination of a lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the cross motion granted.

[447]*447The hearing officer upheld many of the charges and specifications lodged against petitioner, which findings are not challenged on appeal. Such charges alleged professional misconduct, neglect of duty, failure to follow procedures and carry out duties, and incompetent and inefficient service during two school years. Furthermore, the evidence showed that notwithstanding petitioner’s prior unblemished record of service, she continued to blame others and refused to accept responsibility for her failure to effectively manage her classroom and deliver effective instruction. In particular, petitioner exhibited an unwillingness to employ the “workshop method” in her classroom, or implement any of the school administration’s suggestions for improvement (see Matter of Benjamin v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 105 AD3d 677 [1st Dept 2013]).

Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock one’s sense of fairness (see id.).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered July 3, 2012, which granted the petition to vacate the determination to terminate petitioner’s employment with respondent Department of Education as a tenured school teacher, denied respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition and remanded the matter for a determination of a lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the cross motion granted.

[447]*447The hearing officer upheld many of the charges and specifications lodged against petitioner, which findings are not challenged on appeal. Such charges alleged professional misconduct, neglect of duty, failure to follow procedures and carry out duties, and incompetent and inefficient service during two school years. Furthermore, the evidence showed that notwithstanding petitioner’s prior unblemished record of service, she continued to blame others and refused to accept responsibility for her failure to effectively manage her classroom and deliver effective instruction. In particular, petitioner exhibited an unwillingness to employ the “workshop method” in her classroom, or implement any of the school administration’s suggestions for improvement (see Matter of Benjamin v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 105 AD3d 677 [1st Dept 2013]).

Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the penalty of termination does not shock one’s sense of fairness (see id.).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 446, 985 N.Y.S.2d 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davies-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2014.